Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T03:13:44Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::why do you advocate gun ban like [[Hitler]] did?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Compare me to Hitler again and I'll complain to a sysop and ask for you to be banned. Play nice. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: It boggles the mind how gun toting radicals see this tragedy as an argument for less gun control. Let's think about '''conserving''' life shall we?
::::::what about neo-luddite radicals using this tragedy as an argument for more gun control?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah. 'Cuz we should take the word of the CRIMINALLY INSANE when they buy lethal weapons. Great system. Much better than, I don't know, NOT LETTING PEOPLE HAVE CONCEALBLE WEAPONS. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:for every weapon, you can find a big enough bag to conceal it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: True enough, but a bag to conceal a rifle would be a lot more noticable . .. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Here is the reference that this site's owner says makes the killer an "Anti-Christian Zealot" Emphasis mine . . . "''He also expressed '''disappointment in his own religion''', and made '''several references to Christianity,''' the official said.''" [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T03:12:06Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::why do you advocate gun ban like [[Hitler]] did?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Compare me to Hitler again and I'll complain to a sysop and ask for you to be banned. Play nice. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: It boggles the mind how gun toting radicals see this tragedy as an argument for less gun control. Let's think about '''conserving''' life shall we?
::::::what about neo-luddite radicals using this tragedy as an argument for more gun control?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah. 'Cuz we should take the word of the CRIMINALLY INSANE when they buy lethal weapons. Great system. Much better than, I don't know, NOT LETTING PEOPLE HAVE CONCEALBLE WEAPONS. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:for every weapon, you can find a big enough bag to conceal it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Here is the reference that this site's owner says makes the killer an "Anti-Christian Zealot" Emphasis mine . . . "''He also expressed '''disappointment in his own religion''', and made '''several references to Christianity,''' the official said.''" [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T03:11:31Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::why do you advocate gun ban like [[Hitler]] did?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Compare me to Hitler again and I'll complain to a sysop and ask for you to be banned. Play nice. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: It boggles the mind how gun toting radicals see this tragedy as an argument for less gun control. Let's think about '''conserving''' life shall we?
::::::what about neo-luddite radicals using this tragedy as an argument for more gun control?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah. 'Cuz we should take the word of the CRIMINALLY INSANE when they buy lethal weapons. Great system. Much better than, I don't know, NOT LETTING PEOPLE HAVE CONCEALBLE WEAPONS. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:for every weapon, you can find a big enough bag to conceal it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Here is the reference that this site's owner says makes the killer an "Anti-Christian Zealot" Emphasis mine . . . "''He also expressed '''disappointment in his own religion''', and made '''several references to Christianity,''' the official said.''"

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T02:51:57Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::why do you advocate gun ban like [[Hitler]] did?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: It boggles the mind how gun toting radicals see this tragedy as an argument for less gun control. Let's think about '''conserving''' life shall we?
::: he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T02:48:59Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::why do you advocate gun ban like [[Hitler]] did?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T02:43:27Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T02:04:41Z

Godman:

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T02:03:55Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T01:36:12Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T01:29:13Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T01:28:12Z

Godman: /* VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot */

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and not a Christian but your statement is a lie and seeminly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T01:18:05Z

Godman: /* Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... */

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T01:14:43Z

Godman:

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-17T22:29:56Z

Godman: /* Pornography's Role!? */

Ku Klux Klan

2007-04-04T20:15:13Z

Godman:

{{stub}}[[Image:Artoon.jpg|right|thumb|A political cartoon depicting the KKK and the Democratic party as continuations of the Confederacy]]
The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a [[social]] and [[cultural]] [[movement]] in the [[United States]]. It aims at the suppression of [[African-American]], [[Jewish]], [[Homosexual]], and [[Catholic]] interests. [[Violence]] and [[intimidation]] are historically the means used to achieve these ends. . Its active membership is estimated to be less than 10,000 in the United States. The Klan presents itself as a Christian organization, but most Christians who are not members deem it to be inherently un-Christian if not anti-Christian.

==Further reading==
*John Edgerton, ''Poverty Palace: How the Southern Poverty Law Center got rich fighting the Klan,'' The Progressive (July, 1988).
*[http://nypress.com/15/39/news&columns/mediapolitics2.cfm Best Source of Misplaced Paranoia ], New York Sun.
*[http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/events/conferences/watchdog2/4th_panel_nonprof.html Nieman Watchdog Project. Nonprofit Organizations. Spring 1999 Conference].
*Raymond A. Schroth, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_44_36/ai_66888046 HATE.COM - Morris Dees and HBO documentary receive negative assessment], National Catholic Reporter, Oct 13, 2000.

Ku Klux Klan

2007-04-04T03:19:42Z

Godman:

{{stub}}[[Image:Artoon.jpg|right|thumb|A political cartoon depicting the KKK and the Democratic party as continuations of the Confederacy]]
The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a [[social]] and [[cultural]] [[movement]] in the [[United States]]. It aims at the suppression of [[African-American]], [[Jewish]], [[Homosexual]], and [[Catholic]] interests. [[Violence]] and [[intimidation]] are historically the means used to achieve these ends. . Its active membership is estimated to be less than 10,000 in the United States. While the Klan claim to be a Christian organization most Christians, deem them to be inherently un-Christian if not anti-Christian.

==Further reading==
*John Edgerton, ''Poverty Palace: How the Southern Poverty Law Center got rich fighting the Klan,'' The Progressive (July, 1988).
*[http://nypress.com/15/39/news&columns/mediapolitics2.cfm Best Source of Misplaced Paranoia ], New York Sun.
*[http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/events/conferences/watchdog2/4th_panel_nonprof.html Nieman Watchdog Project. Nonprofit Organizations. Spring 1999 Conference].
*Raymond A. Schroth, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_44_36/ai_66888046 HATE.COM - Morris Dees and HBO documentary receive negative assessment], National Catholic Reporter, Oct 13, 2000.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-04-04T02:35:15Z

Godman:

'''Pastafarianism''', also referred to as '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM"), is a parody of religion created in 2005 in response to the ongoing debate on [[Intelligent Design]]. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref>
Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]]{{fact}}, as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a critique of the Kansas Board of Education's actions involving [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and demostrating how it could be argued that such a construct could fit the notions put forth by proponents of [[Intelligent Design]] in the same manner as [[Christianity]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>.
Pastafarianism took as its basis the decision by the Kansas Board of Education to redefine science in order to include [[Intelligent Design]]. The definitory change from science as "natural" explanation to science as "logical" explanation enabled Henderson to construct a theory which, if accepted as science, could be considered a better scientific theory than intelligent design.
Whilst Intelligent Design claims to explain the origin of life, Pastafarianism claims to also explain [[Global Warming]] and [[gravity]].
The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-04-04T02:35:06Z

Godman:

'''Pastafarianism''', also referred to as '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM"), is a parody of religion created in 2005 in response to the ongoing debate on [[[[Intelligent Design]]. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref>
Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]]{{fact}}, as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a critique of the Kansas Board of Education's actions involving [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and demostrating how it could be argued that such a construct could fit the notions put forth by proponents of [[Intelligent Design]] in the same manner as [[Christianity]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>.
Pastafarianism took as its basis the decision by the Kansas Board of Education to redefine science in order to include [[Intelligent Design]]. The definitory change from science as "natural" explanation to science as "logical" explanation enabled Henderson to construct a theory which, if accepted as science, could be considered a better scientific theory than intelligent design.
Whilst Intelligent Design claims to explain the origin of life, Pastafarianism claims to also explain [[Global Warming]] and [[gravity]].
The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-04-04T02:34:06Z

Godman:

'''Pastafarianism''', also referred to as '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM"), is a parody of religion created in 2005 in response to the ongoing debate on [[Intelligent Design.]]<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref>
Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]]{{fact}}, as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a critique of the Kansas Board of Education's actions involving [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and demostrating how it could be argued that such a construct could fit the notions put forth by proponents of [[Intelligent Design]] in the same manner as [[Christianity]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>.
Pastafarianism took as its basis the decision by the Kansas Board of Education to redefine science in order to include [[Intelligent Design]]. The definitory change from science as "natural" explanation to science as "logical" explanation enabled Henderson to construct a theory which, if accepted as science, could be considered a better scientific theory than intelligent design.
Whilst Intelligent Design claims to explain the origin of life, Pastafarianism claims to also explain [[Global Warming]] and [[gravity]].
The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-03T21:30:51Z

Godman: /* Item #3 */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In response to Sid above, does he know why Fortran was written? Why UNIX was written? Why C was written? I doubt Sid expects everyone to credit the ''motivation'' of those projects when using those tools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I had to delete the link in order to update the page. I can't explain that obstacle, but we can't remain frozen because of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So? There are hundreds of thousands of articles that Conservapedia needs. For example, you dont have an article on Morocco. CONSERVAPEDIA IS RACIST AGAINST MOROCCANS!

:: The issue that I have is that there are a number of higher math descriptions and proofs ''here'' without the documentation for the basics upon which they rest. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think any of this is meant to actually apply to Conservapedia. God's chosen can do no wrong, after all. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Polls to Assess Bias. ==

:'Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal"'.
:'About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.'
:'Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public.'
:'Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.'
:'even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[33] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.'
All very true. However, it's rather weird then to go on to quote - apparently as a further attack on Wikipedia - the fact that
:''One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined.
Since, ''as Conservapedia acknowledges here'', truth is not democratically determined, how is it relevant what percentage of Americans believe in evolution or Noah's Ark?

: Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== This page makes Conservapedia look BAD ==

I agree that the "BCE/CE" part should be omitted. NOT allowing users to use EITHER of them would be an example of bias. But there are deeper problems with this page. For one, this page is outdated and now inaccurate. "Great Flood" redirects the user to a disambiguation page which includes "Noah's Flood," not to Deluge (mythology). This is unforgivable in a website that so harshly criticizes another website for perceived factual innacuracies.

Also, conservapedia is missing FAR more articles than wikipedia. Admonishing wikipedia for not having an article on certain esoteric subjects is highly hypocritical of a website that doesn't even have an article on the human liver.

Criticizing wikipedia for an occasional unscholarly tone is equally hypocritical. How about this quote from Conservapedia? "Rush Limbaugh is one the greatest men alive in the US of A (God Bless it and peace be upon it). A man with a visionary ability to see Truth through the fog of the Liberal Agenda, I personally pray for Him every night. I wish he would run for President."

//UPDATE: The article I quoted was recently and thankfully deleted.

This page also misrepresents statistical data. According to the study which forms the basis of the claim that most Americans reject evolution ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ), most Americans actually believe evolution exists. 40% believe in evolution with the presence of God, and 9% believe in evolution without God. That's a total of 2% more than the 47% who don't believe in evolution.

Finally, I would abstain from criticizing individual wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads this article will compare the articles mentioned to their conservapedia counterparts. Not to be overly negative, but for the most part I think it's fair to say the wikipedia articles are vastly superior and more exhaustive. If you disagree, look up "Johnny Appleseed."

I would personally love to see this page deleted. It's probably apparent I'm not a conservative, but I hate to see websites making themselves look bad, and this page makes conservapedia look like a hypocritical bully.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please see [http://www.lifeofaturbogeek.blogspot.com my blog entry on this article], although I'm sure it will be disregarded because it's hosted by evil Google. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Number 2 ==

How is this bias? I found the source used for 'half the 9th graders lacked proficiency etc etc', and it pretty much supports what Wikipedia said. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL)

The SFGate article does say that 47% of 9th graders showed proficiency on the english test; however, it also says that it improved 39% from the year before in the next sentence. Good job being 'neutral to the facts.'

: The improvement was probably not due to anything the school did, if you analyze the facts carefully.

: Yes, the opinion of liberal journalists are similar to the opinions of liberal Wikipedia editors. The problem is that the facts set forth in the article do not support the Wikipedia entry, and were omitted from it entirely. Oh, those bothersome facts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: 47%! That is pathetic. Any school that has a literary proficiency rate of less than 80% is failing to teach its students how to read. Why then, does Wikipedia praise this school for its "nuturing environment" and "academic innovation"?

And, as far as I can see, the article is a good article; its well-cited, informative, and unbiased.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 08:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nowhere does the wiki article mention a sex-based health clinic.
:The simple fact is it describes a health clinic which, amongst other things, also deals with [[family planning]] and [[sexually transmitted disease]] issues, the clinic also freely distributes [[condoms]] to students. I know [[conservative]]s don't like [[sex]] but making out that a clinic dealing in such issues is some how sex-based is opinion not fact. ''Wikipedia editors apparently like'' that. No, they described what had been done. If I describe the fact that had rained outside does that mean ''I apparently like'' rain?
:This site is surely some kind of April Fools joke ok?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wrong on your first and last points. The "health" clinic is a "sex-based" clininc. It's not screening for real health problems, such as diabetes or obesity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And actually, according to that same source, the state-wide average is 43%, while Balboa had 47%. Meaning that the whole point doesnt mean anything now. And you can't say that the school did nothing; the school increased AP and Honors classes, better teachers, stronger leadership, and used data to determine student needs (straight from the source). I also think that you're just assuming that its a sex-based clinic (give me a source). [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The school increased its Asian enrollment by 50%. Studies show that Asians do better on tests. That increase in enrollment accounts for the increase in test scores. There is no evidence that the school deserves any credit.

:::: I didn't say the health clinic was exclusively sex-based. But a significant part of its efforts is, including contraception distribution. That's what health clinics typically are for teenagers in public school, only a small percentage of whom have real health problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==

Example 3 says "No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda . . .described as terror organizations by Wikipedia."

That might have been true at the time this article was written, but it doesn't seem to be now. If you look up Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia, it now says;

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.", and again "The origins of the terrorist group can be traced..." So, I think for now, Al-Qaeda needs to be taken off the list in point 3.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 10:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, no, no. It will stay forever, but Andy will add his trademarked "It has only been corrected after Conservapedia pointed out this obvious flaw." to make Conservapedia once again look like the center of the universe. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia will use the euphemism "militant" instead of "terrorist", as Epicurius's example above shows. The second reference to "terrorist" is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV and I expect it may be replaced. Epicurius reinforces the criticism of bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in the case above, they use both "militant" and "terrorist" to describe Al Qaeda, so, that's at least a baby step when it comes to calling terrorists terrorists. I guess we'll have to keep watching it to see what gets removed and what stays.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 16:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The "militant" reference complies with Wikipedia policy; the "terrorist" reference does not. If and when someone complains to Wikipedia admins, I would expect the "terrorist" adjective to be replaced with "militant".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::And Conservapedia using Wikipedia permalinks isn't at all hypocritical, is it? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Don't follow you here. Please be specific. We generally not accept Wikipedia as an authoratitive resource, if that's what you mean. Attempts to do so here, if any, should probably be corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sex and wikipedia ==

<blockquote>"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries? </blockquote>

Seriously, the nonencyclopedic entries in this article are getting a little ridiculous. If the asking of unanswerable questions doesn't qualify as "gossip" then I don't know what does. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Good comment. The "point 3" has been revised so that it does not ask any questions now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Regarding the factual points only: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Statistics Special:Statistics] is very much available on Wikipedia, that part is explicitly wrong. And while it's true that the per-article statistics have been disabled on Wikipedia proper for a while, the data is currently available [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limit=100&wiki=enwiki here], allowing one to draw their own conclusions about the extent to which Wikipedia is seeking traffic with its sex-related entries. (Sex is #13 most popular, followed by other sex-related entries currently at #36, #41, #42, #54, #70, and #94).

:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Thank you for updating the entry to be much more reasonable. The criticisms currently presented are closer to things that are acknowledged/agreed by Wikipedia, so #3 is much more accurate (eg. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored offensive information isn't removed if the only objection is that it's offensive], and that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates no extra disclaimers will be given] other than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer "Disclaimers" link] at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia).
:: Regarding the details of the statistics, note that unlike the stats here, Wikipedia's stats are what's most currently popular, not what's been popular in the past... so they're driven by the whims of current surfers. They're almost always driven by some current event (eg. the "300" movie was very near the top on opening weekend), or an inbound link (eg. social sites like Digg.com can a huge amount of traffic to a page for no immediately obvious reason). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: We've upgraded recently and still have the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Good thing this is not a mainpage "item of interest" accusing Wikipedia of attracting young children to the site with sexual conduct and then trying to hide the fact! oh wait but it is and it does! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Sarcasm doesn't working well in encyclopedias. Please make legitimate comments or refrain. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: please stop calling this site an encyclopedia. It's a group blog written by radical HS students (with delusions of grandeur) that happens to use wiki software. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: even after editing how is 3 an example of bias? it's an example of user usage which is an entirely different thing. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I thoroughly agree. I've already said this, although it seems to have been censored. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I find it personally offensive that you use the word "Sex" in the #3 item on the list. Impressionable youngsters could read that word and then go out and do orgies and the drugs. Also, you link to Wikipedia in the item, which is known to be a repository of pornography and depravity. How dare you damage our nations youth in such a way? For shame.
:::: On an entirely serious note, the article will inevitably have the effect of leading readers to sex-related wikipedia articles, as it did me. I use wikipedia nearly daily and I've never seen any of that content, likely never would have, until conservapedia pointed it out to me. BTW, I'm not thankful. I'd rather avoid that kind of stuff as much as possible, I can't miss the irony that editors here are so proactively inviting their readers to look at that stuff . . . what gives? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 13:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: "What gives" indeed. Mr. "Godman", I've reviewed your edits and found them to be deficient. A gossipy attack on Pat Robertson by someone who calls himself "Godman" and describes himself as a Christian??? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Agreed. It had the same "GO FIND SEX STUFF AT THIS LOCATION" effect on me. I didn't even know there's a "List of sex positions" or a "List of female porn stars by decade" on Wikipedia, but now I've seen them. Great job at not guiding people to potentially non-family-friendly material, Andy. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Sid, I think that's the first conservative edit you've made! Are you really changing your views? Have you complained to Wikipedia about its obscenity yet? Please let us know when you do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: *laughs* No, let me make my point a bit clearer, I see now how it might have been misleading. My comment focused on the fact that the oh-so-family-friendly Conservapedia basically says "Go find sex stuff there!".
::I (personally) have no issue with that. Really. I've read (and occasionally written) about many things you'd NEVER allow on Conservapedia, and it hasn't made me go "MY EYES! THEY BLEED!" - and in many cases, I've read about it on Wikipedia.
::The reason is this: If somebody mentioned Goatse or the various forms of genital piercings to you, and you (for some reason) became curious - where would you go to look it up? Google Image Search? (In case that the answer is not clear: DON'T.).
::In the vast expanses of the Internet, Wikipedia is (as far as I can see) the lesser evil. Looking up Goatse on Google Image Search (with the default setting for SafeSearch) gives you... ''results''. Not the actual Goatse, but at least one result on page one that made even me go "...is that even anatomically possible?". Looking it up on Wikipedia gives me a description that tells me what Goatse is. I agree that Wikipedia not perfect, but when I want to look up things that I guess will be rated a certain way, I go to Wikipedia before trying random Google results.
::That's why I don't get the policy here. By not saying anything on Conservapedia, you send people elsewhere. Some will go to Wikipedia, others will try Google.
::Let's see... after reading [[Homosexuality]], I'd like to know more about [[anal sex]] (which is mentioned in the former article). Whoops, no luck on Conservapedia. Let's try Google. The top three results are: Wikipedia's entry, "AskMen.com - Anal Sex" (description: "Anal Sex- The best and worst parts about lovemaking from behind.") and "Anal Sex Porn Links < PenisBot" (description: "Quality Anal Sex porn links, Anal Sex pictures, videos and stories."). Hmmmmmmmmm... yes, that's ''much'' better than a stub here about what anal sex is all about.
::Conservapedia is a filter. I think we can agree on that. You don't want your visitors to be exposed to certain things. That's why I think that it's strategically dumb to link people to a place on Wikipedia from which they can easily access things you don't want them to be exposed to. It's like saying "Hey, don't think about [insert gross mental image here]!" - it will have the opposite result. And if you want your filter (and thus, your encyclopedia) to be complete (meaning that people don't leave your site to look things up), you should include those things here - in an environment in which you have control over what they see. If you say "I won't tell you about this", people will look for the information elsewhere. They won't say "Oh, Mr. Schlafly doesn't want me to learn anything about this, so I'll just stay here and forget about it". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I sorta hope for humor's sake someone goes to look up goatse. But on a serious note, I'll agree with Sid's points. By mentioning that wikipedia has such content, pandora's box was opened and now curious people will go look for the info. You have much more control over what people can learn/read if you hold the information here, what they'll learn elsewhere is unknown. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: More generally, the above two comments by people who I assume are liberals are enlightening. They use conservative arguments to oppose exposing a liberal project!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said above: I don't have anything against that stuff myself (I find most of it enlightening and/or entertaining) - I just find it hilarious that ''you'' point at it with a giant arrow that reads "SEX STUFF HERE". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: "Aschlafly," I'm not certain what your point in attacking my edits (as well as my motives and my faith) was other than a sort of deflection from the point at hand. I can only assume you're not prepared to discuss the topic of ocnservapedia promoting sexual content reasonably. I wonder, however, if you might benefit more by examining your own actions and edits here rather than questioning my faith. I've made no secret that I don't beleive you can be properly labeled a conservative in any meaningful sense, but rather a radical. I'm fairly certain given your rabid defense of your own views you're not able to understand why I might think that. Be that as it may I've stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it as is your habit to ignore anything that doesn't fit well into your narrow radical view. Have a pleasant day and good luck with this blog. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Aschlafly, you seem to dodge legitimate responses and complaints alot. For example, your response to responses to point 5 in the archives. Also, your last 3 comments didn't actually defend your 'example of bias', but instead, attacked the person disagreeing with your point. (the 1st one attacked Godman's faith and edits, the 2nd one used sarcasm, which you seemed to abhor in a comment above that, and the most recent one called them liberals, (as if that were an insult) while completely ignoring their points. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 18:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: NickJ10, I'm going to archive this page. I do respond to sincere comments and criticisms. If you have one, then I'd be happy to respond. If you respond before I archive this page, then I'll keep your question, if it's sincere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion of article about a Christian missionary ==

several months ago wikipedia deleted an article I created about the famous Christian missionary, author, and hymn writer, [[J. Edwin Orr]]. Their reason, "non notable" despite a google search yielding over 12,000 results. Wikipedia has articles about far less notable people in secular positions some of whom have google search results of less than 900 --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's a great example. I'll include it. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::1) Aschlafly, without looking it up, can you name any hymns written by J. Edwin Orr?

::2) Wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait for Conservapedia to have an article about J. Edwin Orr before criticizing Wikipedia for not having one?

::3) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO WP:BIO] is not based on the number of Google hits. I'd like TedM to point me to the relevant deletion discussion and indicate how J. Edwin Orr meets WP:BIO. Really, by far the most important criterion is the availability of good sources. If J. Edwin Orr meets the criteria in WP:BIO, and if the article when created cited sources and indicated why Orr is notable, it should not have been deleted and I'd be glad to propose it for deletion review. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# I know of one, although the name is not coming to me at the moment.
:::# Not necessarily. The criticism is not that Wikipedia doesn't have such an article, but that they deleted one. Conservapedia has not deleted or refused to have one on Orr, so the same criticism doesn't apply. For what it's worth, I'd definitely agree that Orr is worthy of an article.
:::# I've just looked for the deletion discussion, and there wouldn't have been one, because it was listed for ''speedy'' deletion, in which no such discussion takes place. I understand what you are getting at, that Wikipedia deleted it simply because it didn't meet its criteria. I guess the other side of the coin is (1) that the liberal leanings of a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors meant that few had any personal idea of how notable he was, to either allow time for notability to be demonstrated, or for others to help with meeting the requirements, and (2) Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources tends to exclude people who ''are'' "notable" (in reality, not necessarily in Wikipedia's definition), but who have not had much written about them in mainstream ("reliable") sources.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::It looks like an understandable event to me. The content of the WIkipedia article was as follows:

:::James Edwin Orr was a [[Baptist]] minister and author.
:::He was born in [[Belfast]] on [[January 12]] [[1912]] and died in [[Ridgecrest, North Carolina]] on [[April 12]] [[1987]]
:::He was the author of several books and also wrote numerous [[hymns]]

::It was not deleted because of lack of notability, but because it '''failed to assert''' notability, i.e. '''did not give reasons''' why Orr meets the WP:BIO criteria. The article was marked with a notice saying "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki>."

::However, User:Ted-m didn't take any of these actions.

::The final deletion was made because Ted-m replaced the content of the article with the text <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[J Edwin Orr]]</nowiki> apparently under the impression that this was the same as moving the article, but it isn't. The result was to create a redirect to a nonexistent page--[[J Edwin Orr]] was never created. Redirects to nonexistent pages are legitimate "speedy deletions."

::If the article had, say: given the titles of Orr's books; and mentioned a single source, such as a print biography, for the facts in the article; or quoted a reasonable published source giving the title of one of Orr's hymns and a comment about its being familiar or beloved or anything like that, I don't think it would have been deleted.

::This wasn't a case of anti-Christian bias, It was a case of someone borderline-notable, probably notable enough for a Wikipedia article, whose article was deleted because the contributor didn't create a very good article and apparently didn't take any actions to defend it other than just blindly recreating the same very short article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey, that's not fair! Being able to see what the deleted article had gives you the advantage over me. :-)
:::Seriously, I think that my comments about the liberal leanings of Wikipedia editors is still correct (and I disagree that Orr is "borderline-notable", in reality). But I also concede that this is not a good example to criticise Wikipedia over.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm about to leave a note on [[User:TedM|TedM]]'s talk page... please follow me there. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Everyone, stop trying to convince the christians they aren't actually being persecuted. Can't you see youre trodding on their dreams?

== Item #3 ==

Look, having sex-related articles is not bias, I do not see any reference for the claim that many of the individuals viewing these pages are young, and "popular pages" is ambiguous. Simply because there is material on Wikipedia that is sexually oriented does not decrease its value. Unlike Conservapedia, many of Wikipedia's articles, especially those on intellectual topics, are ''accurate''. Conservapedia, on the other hand, barely merits being called an encyclopedia. It's ride with hypocrisy, immaturity, totalitarianism, and other ills. I am getting closer and closer to simply quitting and denouncing the site as a failure. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and what people use a site for does not indicate what it is. Many people use Conservapedia for entertainment, but does that make it a comedy site? No. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a pro-pornography bias on Wikipedia, and this is correlated to a liberal bias. Liberals like unfettered pornography. What can I say. All liberal judges hold against restrictions on pornography. Look at who has attempted to post obscenity on this site in the past, despite being in clear violation of our [[rules]]. The very first example I saw on Wikipedia was a pornographic image that did not even belong on that particular content page. It was a contrivance, and reflected a pro-pornography bias.

: I know most liberals deny they have bias, and many liberals deny there can even be such a thing as liberal bias. But, objectively, defense of pornography does correlate to liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Pro-pornography bias"? Adding the word bias to anything that you're not a fan of does not make it a bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: How is a judge, any judge, who recognizes that there is no way to regulate pornography without infringing upon the first amendment necessarily LiberalTM? Furthermore, if LiberalsTM are supposed to be these big mean totaliarian socialists, how does that mesh with a laissez-faire attitude to Pornography? Please explain this, I'm eager to see how these problems are reconciled, because if you cannot, I regret to inform you I'm likely to become under the impression that youre just being silly.
:: ...Uh oh, I'm going to be banned for using the word Laissez-faire on cold blood aren't I? I'm sorry, I didnt realize it was European. I didnt mean to inflict the tongue of the unwashed foreigners on the masses like that.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, admit first that liberal bias does exist and then we can have a fruitful discussion. As long someone denies that liberal bias exists there's little point in pursuing this discussion. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sure, liberal bias exists in the world, as does a conservative bias. But having pornography does not constitute liberal bias. If it did then not having pornography is a conservative bias, which is equally frowned upon. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::To which article are you referring, Andy? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:37, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::"Concede my point already, only then will you get to hear me prove it." ...um, yeah, how about you just pretend we do and get on with it already? Hey, pretending people agree with you should come easy to ya, right?
::::--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Aschlafly is simply being provocative and seeking to generate interest in this site in the mold of Ann Coulter. Don't take him too seriously. That is why he put the bit about sex on the main page, to titulate. That is why he says stuff like "There is a pro-pornography bias on Wikipedia, and this is correlated to a liberal bias. " to inflame. And that is why he answer direct questions about obvious holes in his arguments with personal and generally ridiculous attacks, to deflect. The man is simply a radical, faux-christian impressario with bad manners, poor judgment and , at best, tenuous grasp of the truth -- he certainly doesn't rely on it much. My real concern is for the children apparently under his tutelage. They are in for a rude awakening if they ever extract themselves from hate-filled network of lies, half-truths and half-baked ideas about anything he doesn't like or understand. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 17:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:MountainDew

2007-04-03T14:14:24Z

Godman: /* assistance */

Archive:
*[[User talk:MountainDewarchive1]]
*[[User talk:MountainDewarchive2]]

==Edit-Delete conflict==

Wow! My first ever "you deleted, I edited" conflict. There's not even a word for it.

Hey, don't get me wrong, if you think the article can't be salvaged, go ahead and re-delete. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't have a problem with you salvaging it. See my talk page comment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, I don't want to alienate my best friend at Conservapedia. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mining ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&curid=3327&diff=78371&oldid=78363 The definition of quote mining], this edit was done by [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I would appreciate some backup when I actually get him to talk, because that edit shows blatant abridging which completely changes the meaning of the quote. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't want to get deeper into an edit war, so I kindly ask that you undo Conservative's last revision to [[Theory of evolution]]. I don't know you're personal opinions on the subject, but I do know that you're here to build an encyclopedia (being one of the most prolific editors here), and an intentionally mined quote when the full version is in the last revision is unacceptable. I asked Conservative to provide a reason for his reversions, and he has given none. I would appreciate this. Thanks, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Huey ==

:Even if his ban isn't undone, he can still use email user. You are sure he should be blocked? Geo.[www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Request unprotection of [[Dick Cheney]] ==

Would it be possible to unprotect [[Dick Cheney]]? I've got a few edits I'd like to make. The move vandalism that appeared to cause the protection isn't possible anymore, and I've got the page on my watchlist now. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pat Robertson, On feminism ==

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992

Why'd you delete it? He said it, it belongs on the page. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Pat Robertson is "out of the Conservative mainstream"? Since when? The guy ran for president as a Republican back in 1988, and Bush Senior certainly didn't treat him like he was just some kook! --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== I will let Andy decide about the pic policy ==

I will let Andy decide about the pic policy. I do know that in private schools aborted baby pics are shown. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== assistance ==

Wanna block [[User:Theimp?]]

== Response ==

I was responding to the state of the Obama article which said that critique indicated that he could not win because he was black.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-02T19:23:13Z

Godman: /* Sex and wikipedia */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

==Unfair Bias at Conservapedia==
I'm an American and a Conservative, and although I have realized that articles that are subject to heavy debate have a hard time being totally unbiased, a lot of what Conservapedia says about them is totally unfair, and very biased.

An article with noticeable bias at Wikipedia is the article on [[Intelligent Design]], other ones, especially with reference to politics or religion tend to have some bias as well, even if it's hidden a bit more. In a lot of ways that makes sense-considering that biased people wrote it it's basically impossible to have an article without bias. [[Conservapedia]] doesn't even try.

The articles that Conservapedia does complain about are for the most part very small things, mostly things that aren't even there anymore--in a free open content, wiki dictionary like Wikipedia mistakes can be made by anybody, and corrected by anybody, a system that works very well--as can be seen by Conservapedia copying that system.

: I love these unsigned criticisms by someone who says he's a "conservative" and even an "American". Does anyone really think that the preface "I am a conservative and _____________" gives extra weight to what fills in the blank? Well, I'm a conservative and I don't think that preface gives one extra weight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==The center of the world==

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans.
[[User:Proutgirl|Proutgirl]] 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know why liberals won't admit they are liberals. Conservatives don't try to conceal their views. Why do liberals? No one, not even Jimmy Wales, credibly disputes that Wikipedia editors are more liberal than the American public. Defining a liberal quotient in the most reasonably manner - the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a population - results in the conclusion that the American public has a liberal quotient of 0.5 and Wikipedia has a liberal quotient six times greater, or 3.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I don't why you can't admit that you did poor statistics. There is nothing conservative about fudging numbers. The theorem that you want to prove is true. Wikipedia is more liberal. The proof that you give is wrong. There is nothing liberal about the criticism on your proof. Everybody can make a math mistake, but it apparently it costs you to much courage to admit it. You rather call people liberal. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:10 AEST.

:::::: I've begged and pleaded with the liberal defenders of Wikipedia to give an alternative definition of a liberal quotient, and then calculate an alternative number of how much more liberal Wikipedia is then the American public. But the more I beg for this, the less they provide an alternative. Liberal quotient only makes sense as a ratio liberals to conservatives, and that is a six-fold difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::: What would the Moderate quotient be? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::#I am not sure what the liberals said, but I and a few other suggested that you should compare liberals to the entire population. Because that is exactly what you are saying, when you say '''Liberal bias compared to the American public'''. There is no mention of conservative in your own statement.
::::::#I admit freely that you begged and pleaded for an answer, and you got plenty of answers. Case is that you are just not reading them. Maybe willful ignorance on your side. And people have begged and pleaded you to read their questions and suggestions and answer them sincerely, instead of your standard answer that they are just liberals.
::::::#You repeat all the time that the only reasonable definition of liberal bias is to compare the '''number of liberals to the number of conservatives'''. What about the moderates? What about the 129 other categories in the wikipedia list of categories[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_politics]. Your definition is not reasonable at all. Do you know how many people he misunderstood your claim that there are 2:1 conservative vs liberal in America to mean that 2/3 is conservative and 1/3 is liberal. I found at least five. While the actual numbers from the Harris poll show that 1/3 is conservative and 1/6 liberal, and the rest moderate. IIRC even the guy at NPR made this mistake. You are misleading people with your claim.
::::::#You really love your '''6 times''' claim but when you look at your numbers, then you find out that all what you say is that '''the ratio of liberals versus conservatives in a self-selected sample of wikipedia editors is six times the ratio of liberal vs conservatives in the American public, ignoring the majority of moderates for a moment'''.
::::::# My definition of liberal bias can be found just a few lines above your complaint that nobody gave an alternative definition. Wikipedia is defined by it articles, and it should be judged by its articles. Not by a self-selected sample of people who selected liberal or conservative from list of categories that include "Support Romanian-Moldovan reunification", and "Support Transnistria independence".
::::::# Suppose your Stats 101 teacher would ask you to 1) calculate the liberal bias in wikipedia 2) compare it to the liberal bias of the American public. What would be your answer?
::::::[[User:Order|Order]]March 31, 00:40 (AEST)

:: The moderates cancel either other out and generally act like spectators, both in the American public and on wiki-based encyclopedias like Wikipedia. The moderates do not affect the liberal quotient.

:: Order, you still haven't provided an alternative definition of a liberal quotient for a group. The only sensible definition using a scale between 0 and infinity is the ratio of liberals to conservatives. If you're giving me such grief over such an obvious and simple definition, then I hate to think how you would have objected to [[Lord Kelvin]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Your requirement that it has to map from zero to infinity is kind of arbitrary, because you can map any function over an infinite domain to the [zero,infinity] domain. Basic math. No need to invoke Lord Kelvin. Lol. Was it you who complained about ''elemntary proof'', or was it your alter ego?

My alternative definition for liberal bias is either:
* '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity]. Or take the negative logarithm of (1-Liberals/Population), to whatever base you like. Would make it behave like pH, or scale of Richter
* '''Liberals/(Population-Liberal)''', the second obvious choice. Maps naturally from zero to infinity.

: Both scales above are unacceptable because they don't take into account the number of conservatives. A population of 20% liberal, 80% moderate is obviously very different from a population of 20% liberal, 80% conservative. Yet on your scale, the liberal quotient is identical!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* Funny, your idea that moderates do not matter. So if you have in a group only 99 moderates, and one Liberal, it would be as Liberal, as if it had 100 Liberals, and no moderates?

: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air.

: Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.[[User:Order]]

: As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "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". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The Wikipedia article "Palestinian people" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people] perhaps doesn't mention "terrorism" because the "Palestinian people" aren't "terrorists" per se. That would be like saying an article on the American people is biased because it doesn't mention "mass murderers" because of, for example, "[[Charles Manson]]". If one follows the Wikpedia link to the "Palestine Liberation Organization" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization] it is mentioned that they are thought to be "the richest of all terrorist organizations".
:::One needn't be to be a rocket scientist to notice how silly some of these examples of bias in Wikipedia are.
:::They make us Conservatives look like nutjobs.
::::"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." (John 8:45)
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 15:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In response to Sid above, does he know why Fortran was written? Why UNIX was written? Why C was written? I doubt Sid expects everyone to credit the ''motivation'' of those projects when using those tools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I had to delete the link in order to update the page. I can't explain that obstacle, but we can't remain frozen because of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So? There are hundreds of thousands of articles that Conservapedia needs. For example, you dont have an article on Morocco. CONSERVAPEDIA IS RACIST AGAINST MOROCCANS!

:: The issue that I have is that there are a number of higher math descriptions and proofs ''here'' without the documentation for the basics upon which they rest. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think any of this is meant to actually apply to Conservapedia. God's chosen can do no wrong, after all. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Polls to Assess Bias. ==

:'Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal"'.
:'About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.'
:'Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public.'
:'Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.'
:'even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[33] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.'
All very true. However, it's rather weird then to go on to quote - apparently as a further attack on Wikipedia - the fact that
:''One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined.
Since, ''as Conservapedia acknowledges here'', truth is not democratically determined, how is it relevant what percentage of Americans believe in evolution or Noah's Ark?

: Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== This page makes Conservapedia look BAD ==

I agree that the "BCE/CE" part should be omitted. NOT allowing users to use EITHER of them would be an example of bias. But there are deeper problems with this page. For one, this page is outdated and now inaccurate. "Great Flood" redirects the user to a disambiguation page which includes "Noah's Flood," not to Deluge (mythology). This is unforgivable in a website that so harshly criticizes another website for perceived factual innacuracies.

Also, conservapedia is missing FAR more articles than wikipedia. Admonishing wikipedia for not having an article on certain esoteric subjects is highly hypocritical of a website that doesn't even have an article on the human liver.

Criticizing wikipedia for an occasional unscholarly tone is equally hypocritical. How about this quote from Conservapedia? "Rush Limbaugh is one the greatest men alive in the US of A (God Bless it and peace be upon it). A man with a visionary ability to see Truth through the fog of the Liberal Agenda, I personally pray for Him every night. I wish he would run for President."

//UPDATE: The article I quoted was recently and thankfully deleted.

This page also misrepresents statistical data. According to the study which forms the basis of the claim that most Americans reject evolution ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ), most Americans actually believe evolution exists. 40% believe in evolution with the presence of God, and 9% believe in evolution without God. That's a total of 2% more than the 47% who don't believe in evolution.

Finally, I would abstain from criticizing individual wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads this article will compare the articles mentioned to their conservapedia counterparts. Not to be overly negative, but for the most part I think it's fair to say the wikipedia articles are vastly superior and more exhaustive. If you disagree, look up "Johnny Appleseed."

I would personally love to see this page deleted. It's probably apparent I'm not a conservative, but I hate to see websites making themselves look bad, and this page makes conservapedia look like a hypocritical bully.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please see [http://www.lifeofaturbogeek.blogspot.com my blog entry on this article], although I'm sure it will be disregarded because it's hosted by evil Google. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Number 2 ==

How is this bias? I found the source used for 'half the 9th graders lacked proficiency etc etc', and it pretty much supports what Wikipedia said. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL)

The SFGate article does say that 47% of 9th graders showed proficiency on the english test; however, it also says that it improved 39% from the year before in the next sentence. Good job being 'neutral to the facts.'

: The improvement was probably not due to anything the school did, if you analyze the facts carefully.

: Yes, the opinion of liberal journalists are similar to the opinions of liberal Wikipedia editors. The problem is that the facts set forth in the article do not support the Wikipedia entry, and were omitted from it entirely. Oh, those bothersome facts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: 47%! That is pathetic. Any school that has a literary proficiency rate of less than 80% is failing to teach its students how to read. Why then, does Wikipedia praise this school for its "nuturing environment" and "academic innovation"?

And, as far as I can see, the article is a good article; its well-cited, informative, and unbiased.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 08:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nowhere does the wiki article mention a sex-based health clinic.
:The simple fact is it describes a health clinic which, amongst other things, also deals with [[family planning]] and [[sexually transmitted disease]] issues, the clinic also freely distributes [[condoms]] to students. I know [[conservative]]s don't like [[sex]] but making out that a clinic dealing in such issues is some how sex-based is opinion not fact. ''Wikipedia editors apparently like'' that. No, they described what had been done. If I describe the fact that had rained outside does that mean ''I apparently like'' rain?
:This site is surely some kind of April Fools joke ok?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wrong on your first and last points. The "health" clinic is a "sex-based" clininc. It's not screening for real health problems, such as diabetes or obesity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And actually, according to that same source, the state-wide average is 43%, while Balboa had 47%. Meaning that the whole point doesnt mean anything now. And you can't say that the school did nothing; the school increased AP and Honors classes, better teachers, stronger leadership, and used data to determine student needs (straight from the source). I also think that you're just assuming that its a sex-based clinic (give me a source). [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The school increased its Asian enrollment by 50%. Studies show that Asians do better on tests. That increase in enrollment accounts for the increase in test scores. There is no evidence that the school deserves any credit.

:::: I didn't say the health clinic was exclusively sex-based. But a significant part of its efforts is, including contraception distribution. That's what health clinics typically are for teenagers in public school, only a small percentage of whom have real health problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==

Example 3 says "No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda . . .described as terror organizations by Wikipedia."

That might have been true at the time this article was written, but it doesn't seem to be now. If you look up Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia, it now says;

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.", and again "The origins of the terrorist group can be traced..." So, I think for now, Al-Qaeda needs to be taken off the list in point 3.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 10:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, no, no. It will stay forever, but Andy will add his trademarked "It has only been corrected after Conservapedia pointed out this obvious flaw." to make Conservapedia once again look like the center of the universe. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia will use the euphemism "militant" instead of "terrorist", as Epicurius's example above shows. The second reference to "terrorist" is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV and I expect it may be replaced. Epicurius reinforces the criticism of bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in the case above, they use both "militant" and "terrorist" to describe Al Qaeda, so, that's at least a baby step when it comes to calling terrorists terrorists. I guess we'll have to keep watching it to see what gets removed and what stays.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 16:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The "militant" reference complies with Wikipedia policy; the "terrorist" reference does not. If and when someone complains to Wikipedia admins, I would expect the "terrorist" adjective to be replaced with "militant".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::And Conservapedia using Wikipedia permalinks isn't at all hypocritical, is it? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Don't follow you here. Please be specific. We generally not accept Wikipedia as an authoratitive resource, if that's what you mean. Attempts to do so here, if any, should probably be corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sex and wikipedia ==

<blockquote>"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries? </blockquote>

Seriously, the nonencyclopedic entries in this article are getting a little ridiculous. If the asking of unanswerable questions doesn't qualify as "gossip" then I don't know what does. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Good comment. The "point 3" has been revised so that it does not ask any questions now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Regarding the factual points only: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Statistics Special:Statistics] is very much available on Wikipedia, that part is explicitly wrong. And while it's true that the per-article statistics have been disabled on Wikipedia proper for a while, the data is currently available [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limit=100&wiki=enwiki here], allowing one to draw their own conclusions about the extent to which Wikipedia is seeking traffic with its sex-related entries. (Sex is #13 most popular, followed by other sex-related entries currently at #36, #41, #42, #54, #70, and #94).

:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Thank you for updating the entry to be much more reasonable. The criticisms currently presented are closer to things that are acknowledged/agreed by Wikipedia, so #3 is much more accurate (eg. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored offensive information isn't removed if the only objection is that it's offensive], and that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates no extra disclaimers will be given] other than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer "Disclaimers" link] at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia).
:: Regarding the details of the statistics, note that unlike the stats here, Wikipedia's stats are what's most currently popular, not what's been popular in the past... so they're driven by the whims of current surfers. They're almost always driven by some current event (eg. the "300" movie was very near the top on opening weekend), or an inbound link (eg. social sites like Digg.com can a huge amount of traffic to a page for no immediately obvious reason). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: We've upgraded recently and still have the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Good thing this is not a mainpage "item of interest" accusing Wikipedia of attracting young children to the site with sexual conduct and then trying to hide the fact! oh wait but it is and it does! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Sarcasm doesn't working well in encyclopedias. Please make legitimate comments or refrain. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: please stop calling this site an encyclopedia. It's a group blog written by radical HS students (with delusions of grandeur) that happens to use wiki software. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: even after editing how is 3 an example of bias? it's an example of user usage which is an entirely different thing. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I find it personally offensive that you use the word "Sex" in the #3 item on the list. Impressionable youngsters could read that word and then go out and do orgies and the drugs. Also, you link to Wikipedia in the item, which is known to be a repository of pornography and depravity. How dare you damage our nations youth in such a way? For shame.
:::: On an entirely serious note, the article will inevitably have the effect of leading readers to sex-related wikipedia articles, as it did me. I use wikipedia nearly daily and I've never seen any of that content, likely never would have, until conservapedia pointed it out to me. BTW, I'm not thankful. I'd rather avoid that kind of stuff as much as possible, I can't miss the irony that editors here are so proactively inviting their readers to look at that stuff . . . what gives? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 13:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: "What gives" indeed. Mr. "Godman", I've reviewed your edits and found them to be deficient. A gossipy attack on Pat Robertson by someone who calls himself "Godman" and describes himself as a Christian??? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Agreed. It had the same "GO FIND SEX STUFF AT THIS LOCATION" effect on me. I didn't even know there's a "List of sex positions" or a "List of female porn stars by decade" on Wikipedia, but now I've seen them. Great job at not guiding people to potentially non-family-friendly material, Andy. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Sid, I think that's the first conservative edit you've made! Are you really changing your views? Have you complained to Wikipedia about its obscenity yet? Please let us know when you do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: *laughs* No, let me make my point a bit clearer, I see now how it might have been misleading. My comment focused on the fact that the oh-so-family-friendly Conservapedia basically says "Go find sex stuff there!".
::I (personally) have no issue with that. Really. I've read (and occasionally written) about many things you'd NEVER allow on Conservapedia, and it hasn't made me go "MY EYES! THEY BLEED!" - and in many cases, I've read about it on Wikipedia.
::The reason is this: If somebody mentioned Goatse or the various forms of genital piercings to you, and you (for some reason) became curious - where would you go to look it up? Google Image Search? (In case that the answer is not clear: DON'T.).
::In the vast expanses of the Internet, Wikipedia is (as far as I can see) the lesser evil. Looking up Goatse on Google Image Search (with the default setting for SafeSearch) gives you... ''results''. Not the actual Goatse, but at least one result on page one that made even me go "...is that even anatomically possible?". Looking it up on Wikipedia gives me a description that tells me what Goatse is. I agree that Wikipedia not perfect, but when I want to look up things that I guess will be rated a certain way, I go to Wikipedia before trying random Google results.
::That's why I don't get the policy here. By not saying anything on Conservapedia, you send people elsewhere. Some will go to Wikipedia, others will try Google.
::Let's see... after reading [[Homosexuality]], I'd like to know more about [[anal sex]] (which is mentioned in the former article). Whoops, no luck on Conservapedia. Let's try Google. The top three results are: Wikipedia's entry, "AskMen.com - Anal Sex" (description: "Anal Sex- The best and worst parts about lovemaking from behind.") and "Anal Sex Porn Links < PenisBot" (description: "Quality Anal Sex porn links, Anal Sex pictures, videos and stories."). Hmmmmmmmmm... yes, that's ''much'' better than a stub here about what anal sex is all about.
::Conservapedia is a filter. I think we can agree on that. You don't want your visitors to be exposed to certain things. That's why I think that it's strategically dumb to link people to a place on Wikipedia from which they can easily access things you don't want them to be exposed to. It's like saying "Hey, don't think about [insert gross mental image here]!" - it will have the opposite result. And if you want your filter (and thus, your encyclopedia) to be complete (meaning that people don't leave your site to look things up), you should include those things here - in an environment in which you have control over what they see. If you say "I won't tell you about this", people will look for the information elsewhere. They won't say "Oh, Mr. Schlafly doesn't want me to learn anything about this, so I'll just stay here and forget about it". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I sorta hope for humor's sake someone goes to look up goatse. But on a serious note, I'll agree with Sid's points. By mentioning that wikipedia has such content, pandora's box was opened and now curious people will go look for the info. You have much more control over what people can learn/read if you hold the information here, what they'll learn elsewhere is unknown. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: More generally, the above two comments by people who I assume are liberals are enlightening. They use conservative arguments to oppose exposing a liberal project!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said above: I don't have anything against that stuff myself (I find most of it enlightening and/or entertaining) - I just find it hilarious that ''you'' point at it with a giant arrow that reads "SEX STUFF HERE". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: "Aschlafly," I'm not certain what your point in attacking my edits (as well as my motives and my faith) was other than a sort of deflection from the point at hand. I can only assume you're not prepared to discuss the topic of ocnservapedia promoting sexual content reasonably. I wonder, however, if you might benefit more by examining your own actions and edits here rather than questioning my faith. I've made no secret that I don't beleive you can be properly labeled a conservative in any meaningful sense, but rather a radical. I'm fairly certain given your rabid defense of your own views you're not able to understand why I might think that. Be that as it may I've stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it as is your habit to ignore anything that doesn't fit well into your narrow radical view. Have a pleasant day and good luck with this blog. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-02T17:47:49Z

Godman: /* Sex and wikipedia */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-02T16:10:29Z

Godman: /* Sex and wikipedia */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

==Unfair Bias at Conservapedia==
I'm an American and a Conservative, and although I have realized that articles that are subject to heavy debate have a hard time being totally unbiased, a lot of what Conservapedia says about them is totally unfair, and very biased.

An article with noticeable bias at Wikipedia is the article on [[Intelligent Design]], other ones, especially with reference to politics or religion tend to have some bias as well, even if it's hidden a bit more. In a lot of ways that makes sense-considering that biased people wrote it it's basically impossible to have an article without bias. [[Conservapedia]] doesn't even try.

The articles that Conservapedia does complain about are for the most part very small things, mostly things that aren't even there anymore--in a free open content, wiki dictionary like Wikipedia mistakes can be made by anybody, and corrected by anybody, a system that works very well--as can be seen by Conservapedia copying that system.

: I love these unsigned criticisms by someone who says he's a "conservative" and even an "American". Does anyone really think that the preface "I am a conservative and _____________" gives extra weight to what fills in the blank? Well, I'm a conservative and I don't think that preface gives one extra weight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==The center of the world==

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans.
[[User:Proutgirl|Proutgirl]] 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know why liberals won't admit they are liberals. Conservatives don't try to conceal their views. Why do liberals? No one, not even Jimmy Wales, credibly disputes that Wikipedia editors are more liberal than the American public. Defining a liberal quotient in the most reasonably manner - the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a population - results in the conclusion that the American public has a liberal quotient of 0.5 and Wikipedia has a liberal quotient six times greater, or 3.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I don't why you can't admit that you did poor statistics. There is nothing conservative about fudging numbers. The theorem that you want to prove is true. Wikipedia is more liberal. The proof that you give is wrong. There is nothing liberal about the criticism on your proof. Everybody can make a math mistake, but it apparently it costs you to much courage to admit it. You rather call people liberal. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:10 AEST.

:::::: I've begged and pleaded with the liberal defenders of Wikipedia to give an alternative definition of a liberal quotient, and then calculate an alternative number of how much more liberal Wikipedia is then the American public. But the more I beg for this, the less they provide an alternative. Liberal quotient only makes sense as a ratio liberals to conservatives, and that is a six-fold difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::: What would the Moderate quotient be? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::#I am not sure what the liberals said, but I and a few other suggested that you should compare liberals to the entire population. Because that is exactly what you are saying, when you say '''Liberal bias compared to the American public'''. There is no mention of conservative in your own statement.
::::::#I admit freely that you begged and pleaded for an answer, and you got plenty of answers. Case is that you are just not reading them. Maybe willful ignorance on your side. And people have begged and pleaded you to read their questions and suggestions and answer them sincerely, instead of your standard answer that they are just liberals.
::::::#You repeat all the time that the only reasonable definition of liberal bias is to compare the '''number of liberals to the number of conservatives'''. What about the moderates? What about the 129 other categories in the wikipedia list of categories[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_politics]. Your definition is not reasonable at all. Do you know how many people he misunderstood your claim that there are 2:1 conservative vs liberal in America to mean that 2/3 is conservative and 1/3 is liberal. I found at least five. While the actual numbers from the Harris poll show that 1/3 is conservative and 1/6 liberal, and the rest moderate. IIRC even the guy at NPR made this mistake. You are misleading people with your claim.
::::::#You really love your '''6 times''' claim but when you look at your numbers, then you find out that all what you say is that '''the ratio of liberals versus conservatives in a self-selected sample of wikipedia editors is six times the ratio of liberal vs conservatives in the American public, ignoring the majority of moderates for a moment'''.
::::::# My definition of liberal bias can be found just a few lines above your complaint that nobody gave an alternative definition. Wikipedia is defined by it articles, and it should be judged by its articles. Not by a self-selected sample of people who selected liberal or conservative from list of categories that include "Support Romanian-Moldovan reunification", and "Support Transnistria independence".
::::::# Suppose your Stats 101 teacher would ask you to 1) calculate the liberal bias in wikipedia 2) compare it to the liberal bias of the American public. What would be your answer?
::::::[[User:Order|Order]]March 31, 00:40 (AEST)

:: The moderates cancel either other out and generally act like spectators, both in the American public and on wiki-based encyclopedias like Wikipedia. The moderates do not affect the liberal quotient.

:: Order, you still haven't provided an alternative definition of a liberal quotient for a group. The only sensible definition using a scale between 0 and infinity is the ratio of liberals to conservatives. If you're giving me such grief over such an obvious and simple definition, then I hate to think how you would have objected to [[Lord Kelvin]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Your requirement that it has to map from zero to infinity is kind of arbitrary, because you can map any function over an infinite domain to the [zero,infinity] domain. Basic math. No need to invoke Lord Kelvin. Lol. Was it you who complained about ''elemntary proof'', or was it your alter ego?

My alternative definition for liberal bias is either:
* '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity]. Or take the negative logarithm of (1-Liberals/Population), to whatever base you like. Would make it behave like pH, or scale of Richter
* '''Liberals/(Population-Liberal)''', the second obvious choice. Maps naturally from zero to infinity.

: Both scales above are unacceptable because they don't take into account the number of conservatives. A population of 20% liberal, 80% moderate is obviously very different from a population of 20% liberal, 80% conservative. Yet on your scale, the liberal quotient is identical!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* Funny, your idea that moderates do not matter. So if you have in a group only 99 moderates, and one Liberal, it would be as Liberal, as if it had 100 Liberals, and no moderates?

: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air.

: Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.[[User:Order]]

: As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "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". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The Wikipedia article "Palestinian people" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people] perhaps doesn't mention "terrorism" because the "Palestinian people" aren't "terrorists" per se. That would be like saying an article on the American people is biased because it doesn't mention "mass murderers" because of, for example, "[[Charles Manson]]". If one follows the Wikpedia link to the "Palestine Liberation Organization" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization] it is mentioned that they are thought to be "the richest of all terrorist organizations".
:::One needn't be to be a rocket scientist to notice how silly some of these examples of bias in Wikipedia are.
:::They make us Conservatives look like nutjobs.
::::"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." (John 8:45)
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 15:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In response to Sid above, does he know why Fortran was written? Why UNIX was written? Why C was written? I doubt Sid expects everyone to credit the ''motivation'' of those projects when using those tools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I had to delete the link in order to update the page. I can't explain that obstacle, but we can't remain frozen because of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So? There are hundreds of thousands of articles that Conservapedia needs. For example, you dont have an article on Morocco. CONSERVAPEDIA IS RACIST AGAINST MOROCCANS!

:: The issue that I have is that there are a number of higher math descriptions and proofs ''here'' without the documentation for the basics upon which they rest. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think any of this is meant to actually apply to Conservapedia. God's chosen can do no wrong, after all. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Polls to Assess Bias. ==

:'Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal"'.
:'About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.'
:'Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public.'
:'Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.'
:'even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[33] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.'
All very true. However, it's rather weird then to go on to quote - apparently as a further attack on Wikipedia - the fact that
:''One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined.
Since, ''as Conservapedia acknowledges here'', truth is not democratically determined, how is it relevant what percentage of Americans believe in evolution or Noah's Ark?

: Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== This page makes Conservapedia look BAD ==

I agree that the "BCE/CE" part should be omitted. NOT allowing users to use EITHER of them would be an example of bias. But there are deeper problems with this page. For one, this page is outdated and now inaccurate. "Great Flood" redirects the user to a disambiguation page which includes "Noah's Flood," not to Deluge (mythology). This is unforgivable in a website that so harshly criticizes another website for perceived factual innacuracies.

Also, conservapedia is missing FAR more articles than wikipedia. Admonishing wikipedia for not having an article on certain esoteric subjects is highly hypocritical of a website that doesn't even have an article on the human liver.

Criticizing wikipedia for an occasional unscholarly tone is equally hypocritical. How about this quote from Conservapedia? "Rush Limbaugh is one the greatest men alive in the US of A (God Bless it and peace be upon it). A man with a visionary ability to see Truth through the fog of the Liberal Agenda, I personally pray for Him every night. I wish he would run for President."

//UPDATE: The article I quoted was recently and thankfully deleted.

This page also misrepresents statistical data. According to the study which forms the basis of the claim that most Americans reject evolution ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ), most Americans actually believe evolution exists. 40% believe in evolution with the presence of God, and 9% believe in evolution without God. That's a total of 2% more than the 47% who don't believe in evolution.

Finally, I would abstain from criticizing individual wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads this article will compare the articles mentioned to their conservapedia counterparts. Not to be overly negative, but for the most part I think it's fair to say the wikipedia articles are vastly superior and more exhaustive. If you disagree, look up "Johnny Appleseed."

I would personally love to see this page deleted. It's probably apparent I'm not a conservative, but I hate to see websites making themselves look bad, and this page makes conservapedia look like a hypocritical bully.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please see [http://www.lifeofaturbogeek.blogspot.com my blog entry on this article], although I'm sure it will be disregarded because it's hosted by evil Google. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Number 2 ==

How is this bias? I found the source used for 'half the 9th graders lacked proficiency etc etc', and it pretty much supports what Wikipedia said. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL)

The SFGate article does say that 47% of 9th graders showed proficiency on the english test; however, it also says that it improved 39% from the year before in the next sentence. Good job being 'neutral to the facts.'

: The improvement was probably not due to anything the school did, if you analyze the facts carefully.

: Yes, the opinion of liberal journalists are similar to the opinions of liberal Wikipedia editors. The problem is that the facts set forth in the article do not support the Wikipedia entry, and were omitted from it entirely. Oh, those bothersome facts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: 47%! That is pathetic. Any school that has a literary proficiency rate of less than 80% is failing to teach its students how to read. Why then, does Wikipedia praise this school for its "nuturing environment" and "academic innovation"?

And, as far as I can see, the article is a good article; its well-cited, informative, and unbiased.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 08:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nowhere does the wiki article mention a sex-based health clinic.
:The simple fact is it describes a health clinic which, amongst other things, also deals with [[family planning]] and [[sexually transmitted disease]] issues, the clinic also freely distributes [[condoms]] to students. I know [[conservative]]s don't like [[sex]] but making out that a clinic dealing in such issues is some how sex-based is opinion not fact. ''Wikipedia editors apparently like'' that. No, they described what had been done. If I describe the fact that had rained outside does that mean ''I apparently like'' rain?
:This site is surely some kind of April Fools joke ok?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wrong on your first and last points. The "health" clinic is a "sex-based" clininc. It's not screening for real health problems, such as diabetes or obesity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And actually, according to that same source, the state-wide average is 43%, while Balboa had 47%. Meaning that the whole point doesnt mean anything now. And you can't say that the school did nothing; the school increased AP and Honors classes, better teachers, stronger leadership, and used data to determine student needs (straight from the source). I also think that you're just assuming that its a sex-based clinic (give me a source). [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The school increased its Asian enrollment by 50%. Studies show that Asians do better on tests. That increase in enrollment accounts for the increase in test scores. There is no evidence that the school deserves any credit.

:::: I didn't say the health clinic was exclusively sex-based. But a significant part of its efforts is, including contraception distribution. That's what health clinics typically are for teenagers in public school, only a small percentage of whom have real health problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==

Example 3 says "No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda . . .described as terror organizations by Wikipedia."

That might have been true at the time this article was written, but it doesn't seem to be now. If you look up Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia, it now says;

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.", and again "The origins of the terrorist group can be traced..." So, I think for now, Al-Qaeda needs to be taken off the list in point 3.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 10:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, no, no. It will stay forever, but Andy will add his trademarked "It has only been corrected after Conservapedia pointed out this obvious flaw." to make Conservapedia once again look like the center of the universe. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia will use the euphemism "militant" instead of "terrorist", as Epicurius's example above shows. The second reference to "terrorist" is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV and I expect it may be replaced. Epicurius reinforces the criticism of bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in the case above, they use both "militant" and "terrorist" to describe Al Qaeda, so, that's at least a baby step when it comes to calling terrorists terrorists. I guess we'll have to keep watching it to see what gets removed and what stays.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 16:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The "militant" reference complies with Wikipedia policy; the "terrorist" reference does not. If and when someone complains to Wikipedia admins, I would expect the "terrorist" adjective to be replaced with "militant".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::And Conservapedia using Wikipedia permalinks isn't at all hypocritical, is it? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Don't follow you here. Please be specific. We generally not accept Wikipedia as an authoratitive resource, if that's what you mean. Attempts to do so here, if any, should probably be corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sex and wikipedia ==

<blockquote>"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries? </blockquote>

Seriously, the nonencyclopedic entries in this article are getting a little ridiculous. If the asking of unanswerable questions doesn't qualify as "gossip" then I don't know what does. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Good comment. The "point 3" has been revised so that it does not ask any questions now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Regarding the factual points only: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Statistics Special:Statistics] is very much available on Wikipedia, that part is explicitly wrong. And while it's true that the per-article statistics have been disabled on Wikipedia proper for a while, the data is currently available [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limit=100&wiki=enwiki here], allowing one to draw their own conclusions about the extent to which Wikipedia is seeking traffic with its sex-related entries. (Sex is #13 most popular, followed by other sex-related entries currently at #36, #41, #42, #54, #70, and #94).

:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: We've upgraded recently and still have the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Good thing this is not a mainpage "item of interest" accusing Wikipedia of attracting young children to the site with sexual conduct and then trying to hide the fact! oh wait but it is and it does! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Sarcasm doesn't working well in encyclopedias. Please make legitimate comments or refrain. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: please stop calling this site an encyclopedia. It's a group blog written by radical HS students (with delusions of grandeur) that happens to use wiki software. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-02T16:08:06Z

Godman: /* Sex and wikipedia */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

==Unfair Bias at Conservapedia==
I'm an American and a Conservative, and although I have realized that articles that are subject to heavy debate have a hard time being totally unbiased, a lot of what Conservapedia says about them is totally unfair, and very biased.

An article with noticeable bias at Wikipedia is the article on [[Intelligent Design]], other ones, especially with reference to politics or religion tend to have some bias as well, even if it's hidden a bit more. In a lot of ways that makes sense-considering that biased people wrote it it's basically impossible to have an article without bias. [[Conservapedia]] doesn't even try.

The articles that Conservapedia does complain about are for the most part very small things, mostly things that aren't even there anymore--in a free open content, wiki dictionary like Wikipedia mistakes can be made by anybody, and corrected by anybody, a system that works very well--as can be seen by Conservapedia copying that system.

: I love these unsigned criticisms by someone who says he's a "conservative" and even an "American". Does anyone really think that the preface "I am a conservative and _____________" gives extra weight to what fills in the blank? Well, I'm a conservative and I don't think that preface gives one extra weight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==The center of the world==

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans.
[[User:Proutgirl|Proutgirl]] 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know why liberals won't admit they are liberals. Conservatives don't try to conceal their views. Why do liberals? No one, not even Jimmy Wales, credibly disputes that Wikipedia editors are more liberal than the American public. Defining a liberal quotient in the most reasonably manner - the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a population - results in the conclusion that the American public has a liberal quotient of 0.5 and Wikipedia has a liberal quotient six times greater, or 3.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I don't why you can't admit that you did poor statistics. There is nothing conservative about fudging numbers. The theorem that you want to prove is true. Wikipedia is more liberal. The proof that you give is wrong. There is nothing liberal about the criticism on your proof. Everybody can make a math mistake, but it apparently it costs you to much courage to admit it. You rather call people liberal. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:10 AEST.

:::::: I've begged and pleaded with the liberal defenders of Wikipedia to give an alternative definition of a liberal quotient, and then calculate an alternative number of how much more liberal Wikipedia is then the American public. But the more I beg for this, the less they provide an alternative. Liberal quotient only makes sense as a ratio liberals to conservatives, and that is a six-fold difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::: What would the Moderate quotient be? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::#I am not sure what the liberals said, but I and a few other suggested that you should compare liberals to the entire population. Because that is exactly what you are saying, when you say '''Liberal bias compared to the American public'''. There is no mention of conservative in your own statement.
::::::#I admit freely that you begged and pleaded for an answer, and you got plenty of answers. Case is that you are just not reading them. Maybe willful ignorance on your side. And people have begged and pleaded you to read their questions and suggestions and answer them sincerely, instead of your standard answer that they are just liberals.
::::::#You repeat all the time that the only reasonable definition of liberal bias is to compare the '''number of liberals to the number of conservatives'''. What about the moderates? What about the 129 other categories in the wikipedia list of categories[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_politics]. Your definition is not reasonable at all. Do you know how many people he misunderstood your claim that there are 2:1 conservative vs liberal in America to mean that 2/3 is conservative and 1/3 is liberal. I found at least five. While the actual numbers from the Harris poll show that 1/3 is conservative and 1/6 liberal, and the rest moderate. IIRC even the guy at NPR made this mistake. You are misleading people with your claim.
::::::#You really love your '''6 times''' claim but when you look at your numbers, then you find out that all what you say is that '''the ratio of liberals versus conservatives in a self-selected sample of wikipedia editors is six times the ratio of liberal vs conservatives in the American public, ignoring the majority of moderates for a moment'''.
::::::# My definition of liberal bias can be found just a few lines above your complaint that nobody gave an alternative definition. Wikipedia is defined by it articles, and it should be judged by its articles. Not by a self-selected sample of people who selected liberal or conservative from list of categories that include "Support Romanian-Moldovan reunification", and "Support Transnistria independence".
::::::# Suppose your Stats 101 teacher would ask you to 1) calculate the liberal bias in wikipedia 2) compare it to the liberal bias of the American public. What would be your answer?
::::::[[User:Order|Order]]March 31, 00:40 (AEST)

:: The moderates cancel either other out and generally act like spectators, both in the American public and on wiki-based encyclopedias like Wikipedia. The moderates do not affect the liberal quotient.

:: Order, you still haven't provided an alternative definition of a liberal quotient for a group. The only sensible definition using a scale between 0 and infinity is the ratio of liberals to conservatives. If you're giving me such grief over such an obvious and simple definition, then I hate to think how you would have objected to [[Lord Kelvin]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Your requirement that it has to map from zero to infinity is kind of arbitrary, because you can map any function over an infinite domain to the [zero,infinity] domain. Basic math. No need to invoke Lord Kelvin. Lol. Was it you who complained about ''elemntary proof'', or was it your alter ego?

My alternative definition for liberal bias is either:
* '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity]. Or take the negative logarithm of (1-Liberals/Population), to whatever base you like. Would make it behave like pH, or scale of Richter
* '''Liberals/(Population-Liberal)''', the second obvious choice. Maps naturally from zero to infinity.

: Both scales above are unacceptable because they don't take into account the number of conservatives. A population of 20% liberal, 80% moderate is obviously very different from a population of 20% liberal, 80% conservative. Yet on your scale, the liberal quotient is identical!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* Funny, your idea that moderates do not matter. So if you have in a group only 99 moderates, and one Liberal, it would be as Liberal, as if it had 100 Liberals, and no moderates?

: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air.

: Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

* And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.[[User:Order]]

: As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "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". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The Wikipedia article "Palestinian people" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people] perhaps doesn't mention "terrorism" because the "Palestinian people" aren't "terrorists" per se. That would be like saying an article on the American people is biased because it doesn't mention "mass murderers" because of, for example, "[[Charles Manson]]". If one follows the Wikpedia link to the "Palestine Liberation Organization" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization] it is mentioned that they are thought to be "the richest of all terrorist organizations".
:::One needn't be to be a rocket scientist to notice how silly some of these examples of bias in Wikipedia are.
:::They make us Conservatives look like nutjobs.
::::"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." (John 8:45)
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 15:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In response to Sid above, does he know why Fortran was written? Why UNIX was written? Why C was written? I doubt Sid expects everyone to credit the ''motivation'' of those projects when using those tools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I had to delete the link in order to update the page. I can't explain that obstacle, but we can't remain frozen because of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So? There are hundreds of thousands of articles that Conservapedia needs. For example, you dont have an article on Morocco. CONSERVAPEDIA IS RACIST AGAINST MOROCCANS!

:: The issue that I have is that there are a number of higher math descriptions and proofs ''here'' without the documentation for the basics upon which they rest. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think any of this is meant to actually apply to Conservapedia. God's chosen can do no wrong, after all. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Polls to Assess Bias. ==

:'Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal"'.
:'About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.'
:'Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public.'
:'Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.'
:'even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[33] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.'
All very true. However, it's rather weird then to go on to quote - apparently as a further attack on Wikipedia - the fact that
:''One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined.
Since, ''as Conservapedia acknowledges here'', truth is not democratically determined, how is it relevant what percentage of Americans believe in evolution or Noah's Ark?

: Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== This page makes Conservapedia look BAD ==

I agree that the "BCE/CE" part should be omitted. NOT allowing users to use EITHER of them would be an example of bias. But there are deeper problems with this page. For one, this page is outdated and now inaccurate. "Great Flood" redirects the user to a disambiguation page which includes "Noah's Flood," not to Deluge (mythology). This is unforgivable in a website that so harshly criticizes another website for perceived factual innacuracies.

Also, conservapedia is missing FAR more articles than wikipedia. Admonishing wikipedia for not having an article on certain esoteric subjects is highly hypocritical of a website that doesn't even have an article on the human liver.

Criticizing wikipedia for an occasional unscholarly tone is equally hypocritical. How about this quote from Conservapedia? "Rush Limbaugh is one the greatest men alive in the US of A (God Bless it and peace be upon it). A man with a visionary ability to see Truth through the fog of the Liberal Agenda, I personally pray for Him every night. I wish he would run for President."

//UPDATE: The article I quoted was recently and thankfully deleted.

This page also misrepresents statistical data. According to the study which forms the basis of the claim that most Americans reject evolution ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ), most Americans actually believe evolution exists. 40% believe in evolution with the presence of God, and 9% believe in evolution without God. That's a total of 2% more than the 47% who don't believe in evolution.

Finally, I would abstain from criticizing individual wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads this article will compare the articles mentioned to their conservapedia counterparts. Not to be overly negative, but for the most part I think it's fair to say the wikipedia articles are vastly superior and more exhaustive. If you disagree, look up "Johnny Appleseed."

I would personally love to see this page deleted. It's probably apparent I'm not a conservative, but I hate to see websites making themselves look bad, and this page makes conservapedia look like a hypocritical bully.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please see [http://www.lifeofaturbogeek.blogspot.com my blog entry on this article], although I'm sure it will be disregarded because it's hosted by evil Google. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Number 2 ==

How is this bias? I found the source used for 'half the 9th graders lacked proficiency etc etc', and it pretty much supports what Wikipedia said. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL)

The SFGate article does say that 47% of 9th graders showed proficiency on the english test; however, it also says that it improved 39% from the year before in the next sentence. Good job being 'neutral to the facts.'

: The improvement was probably not due to anything the school did, if you analyze the facts carefully.

: Yes, the opinion of liberal journalists are similar to the opinions of liberal Wikipedia editors. The problem is that the facts set forth in the article do not support the Wikipedia entry, and were omitted from it entirely. Oh, those bothersome facts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: 47%! That is pathetic. Any school that has a literary proficiency rate of less than 80% is failing to teach its students how to read. Why then, does Wikipedia praise this school for its "nuturing environment" and "academic innovation"?

And, as far as I can see, the article is a good article; its well-cited, informative, and unbiased.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 08:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nowhere does the wiki article mention a sex-based health clinic.
:The simple fact is it describes a health clinic which, amongst other things, also deals with [[family planning]] and [[sexually transmitted disease]] issues, the clinic also freely distributes [[condoms]] to students. I know [[conservative]]s don't like [[sex]] but making out that a clinic dealing in such issues is some how sex-based is opinion not fact. ''Wikipedia editors apparently like'' that. No, they described what had been done. If I describe the fact that had rained outside does that mean ''I apparently like'' rain?
:This site is surely some kind of April Fools joke ok?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wrong on your first and last points. The "health" clinic is a "sex-based" clininc. It's not screening for real health problems, such as diabetes or obesity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And actually, according to that same source, the state-wide average is 43%, while Balboa had 47%. Meaning that the whole point doesnt mean anything now. And you can't say that the school did nothing; the school increased AP and Honors classes, better teachers, stronger leadership, and used data to determine student needs (straight from the source). I also think that you're just assuming that its a sex-based clinic (give me a source). [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The school increased its Asian enrollment by 50%. Studies show that Asians do better on tests. That increase in enrollment accounts for the increase in test scores. There is no evidence that the school deserves any credit.

:::: I didn't say the health clinic was exclusively sex-based. But a significant part of its efforts is, including contraception distribution. That's what health clinics typically are for teenagers in public school, only a small percentage of whom have real health problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==

Example 3 says "No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda . . .described as terror organizations by Wikipedia."

That might have been true at the time this article was written, but it doesn't seem to be now. If you look up Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia, it now says;

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.", and again "The origins of the terrorist group can be traced..." So, I think for now, Al-Qaeda needs to be taken off the list in point 3.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 10:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, no, no. It will stay forever, but Andy will add his trademarked "It has only been corrected after Conservapedia pointed out this obvious flaw." to make Conservapedia once again look like the center of the universe. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia will use the euphemism "militant" instead of "terrorist", as Epicurius's example above shows. The second reference to "terrorist" is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV and I expect it may be replaced. Epicurius reinforces the criticism of bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in the case above, they use both "militant" and "terrorist" to describe Al Qaeda, so, that's at least a baby step when it comes to calling terrorists terrorists. I guess we'll have to keep watching it to see what gets removed and what stays.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 16:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The "militant" reference complies with Wikipedia policy; the "terrorist" reference does not. If and when someone complains to Wikipedia admins, I would expect the "terrorist" adjective to be replaced with "militant".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::And Conservapedia using Wikipedia permalinks isn't at all hypocritical, is it? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Don't follow you here. Please be specific. We generally not accept Wikipedia as an authoratitive resource, if that's what you mean. Attempts to do so here, if any, should probably be corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sex and wikipedia ==

<blockquote>"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries? </blockquote>

Seriously, the nonencyclopedic entries in this article are getting a little ridiculous. If the asking of unanswerable questions doesn't qualify as "gossip" then I don't know what does. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Good comment. The "point 3" has been revised so that it does not ask any questions now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Regarding the factual points only: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Statistics Special:Statistics] is very much available on Wikipedia, that part is explicitly wrong. And while it's true that the per-article statistics have been disabled on Wikipedia proper for a while, the data is currently available [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limit=100&wiki=enwiki here], allowing one to draw their own conclusions about the extent to which Wikipedia is seeking traffic with its sex-related entries. (Sex is #13 most popular, followed by other sex-related entries currently at #36, #41, #42, #54, #70, and #94).

:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: We've upgraded recently and still have the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Good thing this is not a mainpage "item of interest" accusing Wikipedia of attracting young children to the site with sexual conduct and then trying to hide the fact! oh wait but it is and it does! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Sarcasm doesn't working well in encyclopedias. Please make legitimate comments or refrain. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Pat Robertson

2007-04-01T22:28:04Z

Godman: /* Controversial Quotes */

'''Pat Robertson''' is an American evangelist, spiritual leader and political leader, also owner and presenter of the TV show ''The 700 Club''. He is known for many highly controversial statements, frequently made on this program.

==Controversial Quotes==

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991''

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
-- ''Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992''

"God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."
-- ''Pat Robertson, reciting a passage from I Timothy in his book, Bring It On.

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992''

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together."
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993.

"I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it."
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 29, 1982''

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
-- ''Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992''

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
-- ''Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.''

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose." -- ''Pat Robertson, Washington Post, June 27,1986)''

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?" -- ''Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227''

In late 2006, Robertson claimed to be able to leg press over 2000 lbs as a result of his taking a herbal supplement. He subsequently threatened a promoter of this same supplement with a 'beating' as a result of a disagreement. It should be noted that Robertson never actually carried out this threat nor publically demonstrated his unsual strength.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Robertson, Pat}}
[[Category:Political people]]

Ku Klux Klan

2007-04-01T22:09:17Z

Godman:

{{stub}}
The Klu Klux Klan (KKK) is a [[political]] and [[cultural]] [[terrorist]] [[organization]] in the [[United States]]. It aims at the suppression of [[African-American]], [[Jewish]], [[Homosexual]], and [[Catholic]] interests. [[Violence]] and [[intimidation]] are historically the means used to achieve these ends. Its active [[membership]] is estimated to be less than 10,000 in the United States. Klansmen consider themselves to be Christians and are widely associated with cross burnings.

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-04-01T22:01:50Z

Godman: /* Restrictions */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==British English==

NO LONGER BANNED

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-03-24T22:48:33Z

Godman: Talk:Environmentalist moved to Talk:Individuals and groups who claim to be Environmentalists in pursuance of the liberal agenda: see talk page

Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.

Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else.
-Gasmonkey

:''from the'' [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tov_namerica.php ATTAC REPORT]:

[[Greenpeace]] Founding/Supervisory Organizations:
*Red China
*Soviet intelligence apparatus ([[KGB]]/FSB)
*[[World Peace Council]] (WPC)
Supporting Organizations:
*[[Red Army Fraction]] (RAF)
*[[Earth First]]! (EF!)
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]] (IPS)

Greenpeace

Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing

Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others

Ideological cover: Environmentalist

Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for [[terrorism]]

Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others

Status: Confirmed active

Assisted Organizations:
*Earth First! (EF!)
*[[Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy]] (SANE)
*[[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] (SSCS)

Derivative/Controlled Organizations:
*[[Earth Liberation Front]] (ELF)
*Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.
:I'm a corncerned environmentalist about the environment, too. That's why I thought my lagunage was pretty good.. What we are discussing here is organizations claiming to be environmentalist, which may have other agendas. I'm sure we can get some gound language rounded out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The ATTAC guys also claim that the PLO is behind 9/11 [http://www.attacreport.com/index.htm]. I'd be wary of giving them any credence. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 23:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Be wary of them? that's not anti-Semitic comment, is it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Environmentalist

2007-03-24T22:48:33Z

Godman: Environmentalist moved to Individuals and groups who claim to be Environmentalists in pursuance of the liberal agenda: see talk page

Environmentalist

2007-03-22T04:11:03Z

Godman:

'''Environmentalists''' refers to people who claim to be concerned about protecting the environment, however some environmental organizations and movements have been used for politcal purposes with other objectives than direct concern for the environment aor environmentalims.
Many claiming to be environmentalists support a program of reducing usage of power and materials, and the reusing and recycling of waste. Those who call themselves enviromentalists also are members of the Chinese Communist Party and claim to be concerned about protecting and preserving the natural resources of this country and the world though they don't support the NRA the most ardent true enviromentalists.

Chinese Communist Party

2007-03-22T04:08:56Z

Godman:

The Chinese Communist Party was founed by [[Mao Zedong]] in 1921. It is a political and revolutionary movement which claims to align itself towards[[Communism]], but since the reforms implemented on it by Deng Xiaoping, it has become more of a totalitarian capitalist state.

The Chinese Communist Party persecutes the country’s Christian population, as well as the Falun Gong population, and Tibetan Buddhists. There are several well-documented cases of abuse, torture and false imprisonment. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26602] Consertative commentators have pointed out that most liberals are also communists and likely members of the Chinese Communist Party.

==External link==
*[http://ninecommentaries.com/ Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party], an historical critique of the CCP from the Editorial Board of ''The Epoch Times'', (2005)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-03-22T04:06:04Z

Godman: /* puhlease */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::I agree completely!

== puhlease ==
From this article: ''He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times'' someone's white hood is showing . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aiming to denouce a candidate on the basis of his name, and not his stances on issues or character seems like a pretty poor way to choose the next president. Do people really think the informed voter (aka people who actually end up voting) are going to say "well, i like the guy and what he stands for, but his name just isn't doing it for me. I'll go with Nader instead." I think not.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 15:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*This article needs to be cleaned up, and fast. We must practice more professionalism and objectiveness. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

From the Wikipedia entry, one could sculpt it into becoming more of a Conservative point-of-view. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm actually of the opinion that the pragmatic audience of this site will think something like: there is no way I'm voting for a negro. As is evidenced in this article. the founder of conservapedia's Jesus was clearly lily white and 'merican. I truly beleive they should not call themselves Christian or conservative and they certainly shouldn't call this an encyclopedia. What in the '''hell''' is he teaching those kids?00:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-22T03:54:26Z

Godman: /* items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive */

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-22T00:24:22Z

Godman: /* Bias */ hate is this family's value

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-22T00:19:44Z

Godman: items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-22T00:15:26Z

Godman: /* A good wiki rule - no personal attacks */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Cable News Network

2007-03-22T00:09:37Z

Godman: /* Allegations of Bias */

'''CNN''' (officially the '''Cable News Network''') is the oldest 24 hour cable news channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]] it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by Time Warner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Turkish]] and [[Gaelic]].

== Allegations of Bias ==
It has been accused by a blog produced by self-identified conservative media critics of having a liberal slant to their reporting. However, other commentators have noted that CNN had a conservative slant during the run up to the Iraq war, thus it is likley that the network is simply seeking to gain the largest audience by pandering to the current bias of the majority.
[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]

{{stub2}}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-22T00:05:36Z

Godman: /* The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "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". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-21T22:02:11Z

Godman: /* Conservative does not = Christian */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "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". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-20T22:47:36Z

Godman: /* Ratio (again) */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "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". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T13:03:52Z

Godman: /* Palestinian people on Wikipedia */ hate is a family value

Newsweek

2007-03-17T22:10:50Z

Godman: diversity on staff

'''Newsweek''' is a weekly newsmagazine, started in 1933. It is perhaps most famous for its now-debunked article about an incident at [[Guantanamo Bay]] in which a [[Koran]] was allegedly flushed down the toilet. The story was eventually proved false, and Newsweek was harshly criticized for it.

The criticism stemmed from the fact that Newsweek enjoys a nationwide audience and some degree of respect as a member of the newsmedia, and as such is expected to maintain a certain level of factual accuracy. However, as the magizines writers and editors and either secular, jewsih, or in the case of several sports and entertainment editors, black it will be very difficult for Newsweek to maintain its reputation for much longer.

Environmentalist

2007-03-17T22:06:04Z

Godman: inner city roots

'''Environmentalists''' refers to people who claim to be concerned about protecting the environment, however some environmental organizations and movements have been used for politcal purposes with other objectives than direct concern for the environment aor environmentalims.
Many claiming to be environmentalists support a program of reducing usage of power and materials, and the reusing and recycling of waste. Those who call themselves enviromentalists also are concerned about protecting and preserving the natural resources of this country and the world. However because of their secular and extremist views most environmentlists are merely pawns for radical liberals and communists that inhabit urban and inner city areas.

Country and Western

2007-03-17T22:03:56Z

Godman: crossovers

'''Country and Western''' is a genre of musical style that has remained popular in the [[United States of America]] as well as other countries.

Country and Western originated in the [[South]] and remains most popular there today. It is a mix of [[blues]] and [[folk music]]. Some of the most famous country musicians include [[Hank Williams]], [[Bonnie Langford]] and [[Jimmy Rogers]]. Modern country artists today include [[Brad Paysly]] and [[Kris Kristofferson]]. Many [[rock and roll]] musicians overlap into country and western too. Country and western music is generally enjoyed by most conservatives as it often includes patriotic sentiments. However certain artist, like the Dixie Chicks, ocassionally lose thier way and say foolish things. When this happens Christians and Conservatives stop buying their records and coutry radio stations don't play them anymore.

Infidel

2007-03-17T21:59:53Z

Godman: borader usage

The term "infidels" is a term used by some muslims to refer to good christians, and they use the term as justification to wage Jihad, or holy war, on them through terrorist attacks. The term can also be used to be apply to any person whose belief system differs from yours in a significant way and thus should be considered OK to say about non-christiains too.

[[Category:Religion]]

Marcus Garvey

2007-03-17T21:57:40Z

Godman:

{{stub}}Marcus Garvey (1887–1940) founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA-ACL). Born in Jamaica, Garvey became famous as a proponent of the Back-to-Africa movement, encouraging African Americans to return to Africa. Marcus Garvey was a black person.

Chinese Communist Party

2007-03-17T21:57:01Z

Godman: connection with liberals

The Chinese Communist Party was founed by [[Mao Zedong]] in 1921. It is a political and revolutionary movement which claims to align itself towards[[Communism]], but since the reforms implemented on it by Deng Xiaoping, it has become more of a totalitarian capitalist state.

The Chinese Communist Party persecutes the country’s Christian population, as well as the Falun Gong population, and Tibetan Buddhists. There are several well-documented cases of abuse, torture and false imprisonment. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26602] Some commentators have stated that many if not most liberals are members of the chinese communist party or one of its many franchises.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-03-17T21:47:43Z

Godman:

Talk:Demon

2007-03-17T21:40:15Z

Godman:

The references to the "Nine Hells" and the "Abyss" appear to be based on the occult views of the universe propounded by dungeons and dragons players. I suspect this article has been written as a joke. The Bible mentions one Hell and the "Abyss" is merely a synonym for it used in some (but not all) versions of the Bible, not a separate place. It's dungeons and dragons appears to treat the Nine Hells and the Abyss as different places. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Or Dante. He wrote a book about it. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called Inferno. It preceded Dungeons and Dragons by a couple of hundred years. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)