Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Robin Hood

2007-09-29T12:23:10Z

Graham:

[[Image:Robin Hood and the Lady.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Robin Hood and the Lady, by Walter Crane]]
'''Robin Hood''' (otherwise known as Robin of Locksley) was a medieval [[English]] [[folk hero]], who dwelt, and was buried, according to differing accounts, in either the county of [[Yorkshire]] or of [[Nottinghamshire]]. Rivalry between the two counties over the possession Robin is strong, with most modern representations of the legends placing him in Nottinghamshire, but most of the scarce historical evidence supporting Yorkshire's claim. In fact, Sherwood (''Shire Wood'') Forest, Robin's base of operations, at the time stretched unbroken over much of both counties, and the Sheriff of [[Nottingham]] who features prominently in the tales, would also have had authority over the Forest of Barnsdale in South Yorkshire. One legend maintains he is buried at Kirklees, now a highly populated Metropolitan District, having selected his burial place by the shooting of an arrow.

Robin was a heartless socialist, taking the wealth of the rich and redistributing it among the lazy poor. He also had scant regard for law and order, constantly undermining the statutes and the common law system prevalent under Medieval England.

Historians are divided in their opinion as to whether he actually existed or not, or if so, in which century, though he is first mentioned in the thirteenth century <ref>http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/rh/rhlitbib.htm</ref>. It is likely that the legends are based around the actions of more than one mediaeval outlaw which would explain why it is difficult to assign Robin to one specific era. Dates given range from the time of King John in the twelfth century, to that of [[King Edward II]] in the fourteenth.

Two places named for him are Robin Hood's Bay, in North Yorkshire, <ref>http://www.robin-hoods-bay.co.uk/</ref> and Robin Hood's Cave, in Nottinghamshire, an important archaelogical site, and the most northerly place known to have [[Homo neanderthalensis|Neanderthal]] remains <ref>http://www.showcaves.com/english/gb/showcaves/CreswellCrags.html</ref>.

== Modern Representation ==

[[Image:Adventures of Robin Hood.jpg|thumb|Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in ''"The Adventures of Robin Hood"'' (1938)]]

Modern retellings of the legend have idealised Robin Hood somewhat, depicting him with his band of "merry men" in [[Sherwood Forest]], he is said to have "stolen from the rich to give to the poor".

''The Adventures of Robin Hood'' (1938) was a Hollywood film version of his adventures, starring [[Errol Flynn]], and numerous other film and television adaptations of his life have also been made, including a musical and a Disney animated version with a cast of animals.

== External Link ==

[http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/rh/rhhome.stm Robin Hood Project]

== References ==

<references />

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:England]]

Talk:Black church-burning hoax

2007-09-27T20:59:41Z

Graham:

Shall we mention which ''liberal'' group was responsible for the hoax, or is the L word enough? Should we even mention what the hoax was, or is it sufficient to say 'it was a liberal hoax'? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:53, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:Yes to both. Please do this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:56, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I hadn't heard about this before. I'll look forward to the final entry! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:59, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Template:Burma uprising

2007-09-27T20:16:34Z

Graham:

Recent pro-democracy riots have gripped [[Burma (Myanmar)|Burma]], with widespread involvement of the [[Buddhist]] Clergy. The monks of Burma are so widely revered in their homeland that any attack on them could spark a national uprising against the dictatorship. Already comparisons have been made to the 1988 Uprising against the Military Junta, but so far the violence seems to have been attempts by the Burmese officials to disperse the growing crowds of protesters. Tougher curfew laws have been passed and the officials are beginning to crack down, but no end to the conflict seems to be far away, especially as developments indicate a growing numbers of arrests and assualts on the monks. What had originally started out as protests against rising fuel prices may just evolve into a prosperous democratic future for the Burmese people. The Bush administration has reacted by passing trade sanctions against the tyrannous Burmese regime.

[http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/world/ny-woburm245387861sep24,0,1424701.story (AP)]

[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070926130451.maceqh7v&show_article=1 (Breitbart.com)]

Template talk:Burma uprising

2007-09-27T20:13:14Z

Graham:

Much better! Great work, Graham. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:Its still amateurish! Please tear and take away as you see fit, and thanks again to Ed for allowing us to do this! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:13, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Burma

2007-09-27T20:12:08Z

Graham: /* Sept 2007 uprising */

The source for the addition of info to this article is here: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html]. This could be a good place to start when adding basic info, then building it up to contain the current events happening now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Nice work - I'll put some of my own stuff up tomorrow. Godspeed! --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

:Here's the NLD's Manifesto [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/NLDElectionManifesto1989.htm]. We should see what thier position on [[abortion]] before posting any of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Sept 2007 uprising==

The viewpoint of Western liberals seems to be that any police shootings of unarmed civilians is absolutely inexcusable, no matter what the provocation is.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_as/myanmar

Even trying to grab weapons away from police - in response to being told to disperse - is not considered by liberals to be sufficient justification for police to "open fire" on a crowd. I guess the cops are supposed to "take the first bullet", i.e., suffer the first wounds.

What I suspect is that it may be a strategy on the part of revolutionaries to attract sympathy by artfully provoking the police into -- seemingly -- firing the first shot in the battle. The aim is to blame the initiation of violence on the security forces. The idea that goading someone into harming you is itself a provocation of violence - and that the provocateur is not entirely innocent is never considered by liberals. They claim an unlimited right to provoke, to break rules. Nothing they do ever merits a severe response.

I am not siding with the government, as several liberals have posted or emailed me privately. I am addressing one issue only: who started what, and is the force used by the various sides justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:You write as though the "liberals" acknowledge that the protesters did try to grab weapons, and that this is not sufficient justification for the police to shoot.
:But the article you linked to did not acknowledge that the protesters did this. It merely reported the claim from the government that this had happened. As such, there was no clear inference, as you claim, that the provocation was not just cause for the police to fire.
:Possibly another factor is that there are reports of soldiers shaving their heads and of the army buying monks robes, the implication being that soldiers would try and infiltrate the monks, allegedly to provide provocation for police action by making it appear that the monks did not remain peaceful. So even if "monks" did try and grab weapons, were they really monks, or soldiers planted in the crowd?
:Who started what, and was the force justified? We are talking about a largely-peaceful protest against an oppressive military dictatorship. A dictatorship that reportedly did shoot into a crowd of peaceful protesters in 1988, killing ''thousands''. You are correct. Perhaps in specific incidents the police were justified. Overall, justice seems to be on the side of the protesters.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::We have to take into consideration that Burma/Myanmar went communist after World War II, then a military takeover sometime in the 1970s. It's an Asian contry with ties to China, so what I'm seeing in the news is something similar to the student revolt in Beijing back in 1989. The Burmese want freedom, and those in charge are not going to let it happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:04, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::It's all moot now, because the security forces opened fire on a crowd that refused to disperse. Unless the crowd was assaulting the police or army with anything as deadly as heavy bricks or rocks, this would be excessive force.

:::Although no one has asked, my opinion is that the way to disperse a crowd of protesters is to arrest them one at a time. Only rough up those who resist. And carefully avoid shooting anyone if at all possible. It takes longer this way, but it's a better way to treat your people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed, if this is what you think, then why did you post what you did and more importantly why have you not reverted it? I don't think these are unreasonable questions in light of what is happening over there as we speak. These people deserve our support, not cynicism. It kind of almost reminds me of the time when Rwanda was suffering a genocide and all the news and radio stations could do was pedantically debate whether it was 'genocide' or 'mass killings'. Either way, what you are currently mentioning in the mainpage is a moot point, and you should remove it in light of almost every single person in conservapedia disagreeing with you. Please do not block me for expressing my opinion. Sincerely,

Graham. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:You are in no danger of being blocked for the respectful expression of an opinion. Please wrote copiously about the [[genocide]] in [[Rwanda]]. You can probably do it more sympathetically than I can; I am often too blunt or hasty. I met a Rwandan at a peace conference last year and insensitively remarked that, "Oh, I just watched [[Hotel Rwanda]]" which made his wife immediately burst into tears. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed,

I am talking about the mainpage item, which still has a stupid spin at the end of it expressing your completely 'original' opinion, something which everyone else disagree's with. First of all Burma is a pro China military Junta notorious for human rights abuses. I think you should sit down, re-read what you wrote and think about how easily that will have offended the Burmese people so much, not to mention the millions around the world apalled by the Burmese governments actions. Please get back to the point and stop trying to derail the discussion away from your original statement. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:57, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed,

Thanks. I hope we can draw a line in the sand and put this down to a genuine misunderstanding. :-) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:12, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Template:Burma uprising

2007-09-27T20:10:05Z

Graham:

Recent pro-democracy riots have gripped Burma, with widespread involvement of the Buddhist Clergy. The monks of Burma are so widely revered in their homeland that any attack on them could spark a national uprising against the dictatorship. Already comparisons have been made to the 1988 Uprising against the Military Junta, but so far the violence seems to have been attempts by the Burmese officials to disperse the growing crowds of protesters. Tougher curfew laws have been passed and the officials are beginning to crack down, but no end to the conflict seems to be far away. The Bush administration has reacted by passing trade sanctions against the tyrannous Burmese regime.

[http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/world/ny-woburm245387861sep24,0,1424701.story (AP)]

[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070926130451.maceqh7v&show_article=1 (Breitbart.com)]

Talk:Burma

2007-09-27T19:57:08Z

Graham: /* Sept 2007 uprising */

The source for the addition of info to this article is here: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html]. This could be a good place to start when adding basic info, then building it up to contain the current events happening now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Nice work - I'll put some of my own stuff up tomorrow. Godspeed! --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

:Here's the NLD's Manifesto [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/NLDElectionManifesto1989.htm]. We should see what thier position on [[abortion]] before posting any of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Sept 2007 uprising==

The viewpoint of Western liberals seems to be that any police shootings of unarmed civilians is absolutely inexcusable, no matter what the provocation is.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_as/myanmar

Even trying to grab weapons away from police - in response to being told to disperse - is not considered by liberals to be sufficient justification for police to "open fire" on a crowd. I guess the cops are supposed to "take the first bullet", i.e., suffer the first wounds.

What I suspect is that it may be a strategy on the part of revolutionaries to attract sympathy by artfully provoking the police into -- seemingly -- firing the first shot in the battle. The aim is to blame the initiation of violence on the security forces. The idea that goading someone into harming you is itself a provocation of violence - and that the provocateur is not entirely innocent is never considered by liberals. They claim an unlimited right to provoke, to break rules. Nothing they do ever merits a severe response.

I am not siding with the government, as several liberals have posted or emailed me privately. I am addressing one issue only: who started what, and is the force used by the various sides justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:You write as though the "liberals" acknowledge that the protesters did try to grab weapons, and that this is not sufficient justification for the police to shoot.
:But the article you linked to did not acknowledge that the protesters did this. It merely reported the claim from the government that this had happened. As such, there was no clear inference, as you claim, that the provocation was not just cause for the police to fire.
:Possibly another factor is that there are reports of soldiers shaving their heads and of the army buying monks robes, the implication being that soldiers would try and infiltrate the monks, allegedly to provide provocation for police action by making it appear that the monks did not remain peaceful. So even if "monks" did try and grab weapons, were they really monks, or soldiers planted in the crowd?
:Who started what, and was the force justified? We are talking about a largely-peaceful protest against an oppressive military dictatorship. A dictatorship that reportedly did shoot into a crowd of peaceful protesters in 1988, killing ''thousands''. You are correct. Perhaps in specific incidents the police were justified. Overall, justice seems to be on the side of the protesters.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::We have to take into consideration that Burma/Myanmar went communist after World War II, then a military takeover sometime in the 1970s. It's an Asian contry with ties to China, so what I'm seeing in the news is something similar to the student revolt in Beijing back in 1989. The Burmese want freedom, and those in charge are not going to let it happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:04, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::It's all moot now, because the security forces opened fire on a crowd that refused to disperse. Unless the crowd was assaulting the police or army with anything as deadly as heavy bricks or rocks, this would be excessive force.

:::Although no one has asked, my opinion is that the way to disperse a crowd of protesters is to arrest them one at a time. Only rough up those who resist. And carefully avoid shooting anyone if at all possible. It takes longer this way, but it's a better way to treat your people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed, if this is what you think, then why did you post what you did and more importantly why have you not reverted it? I don't think these are unreasonable questions in light of what is happening over there as we speak. These people deserve our support, not cynicism. It kind of almost reminds me of the time when Rwanda was suffering a genocide and all the news and radio stations could do was pedantically debate whether it was 'genocide' or 'mass killings'. Either way, what you are currently mentioning in the mainpage is a moot point, and you should remove it in light of almost every single person in conservapedia disagreeing with you. Please do not block me for expressing my opinion. Sincerely,

Graham. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:You are in no danger of being blocked for the respectful expression of an opinion. Please wrote copiously about the [[genocide]] in [[Rwanda]]. You can probably do it more sympathetically than I can; I am often too blunt or hasty. I met a Rwandan at a peace conference last year and insensitively remarked that, "Oh, I just watched [[Hotel Rwanda]]" which made his wife immediately burst into tears. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham,

I am talking about the mainpage item, which still has a stupid spin at the end of it expressing your completely 'original' opinion, something which everyone else disagree's with. First of all Burma is a pro China military Junta notorious for human rights abuses. I think you should sit down, re-read what you wrote and think about how easily that will have offended the Burmese people so much, not to mention the millions around the world apalled by the Burmese governments actions. Please get back to the point and stop trying to derail the discussion away from your original statement. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:57, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

2007-09-27T19:54:56Z

Graham: /* This discussion is wrong */

{{debate}}

Which side is more "right" in the September 2007 Myanmar Monk March conflict?

== This discussion is wrong ==
This whole discussion is a fig leaf for CP editors who want conceal that they are unable to simply feel for the oppressed in Burma, regardless of religion and ideology. Enough said. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you, [[User: Order|Order]]. The abysmal record of AI has noting to do with the fact that Burma, and its people deserve freedom and democracy the same all all people. All other talk on this page is a [[deceit]] to bring relativism to this non-debate. And I am not even going to mention the other [[deceit|deceits]] on this page, inasmuch as the participants here have walked away from here, eschewing CP and have made multiple slanders against CP and its Admins and users, one has to question why they will not retract their [[deceit|deceits]] and just participate openly. I for one would welcome them. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:14, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

My opinion on this matter is quite clear. The mainpage should be edited to give a fairer analysis of the conflict in Burma. What really annoyed me was the claim that the protesters were under the thumb of some sort of Liberal Plot, and that the Military Dictatorship was being harshly treated. They are a military dictatorship. Nuff said.

Also, in light of most admins disagreeing with Ed, the news item still hasn't been taken down. And those who disagree with what is exclusively Ed Poor's opinion are receiving blocks. Its a disgrace. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:13, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:That's just a coincidence. It was not for disagreeing but for making personal attacks that they were blocked.

:Or are you conceding another admin's point that it is liberals who (instead of arguing rationally) merely stoop to personal attacks? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, lets not drag on the damning hypocrisy that is 'Liberal Style' into this Ed. My point was that since you are the sole person who supports the news item on the mainpage, yet refuse to take it down, your reaction has been to block those who hold a righteous indignation towards your actions. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==The monks are more right==

I have to go with the Monks. Remember the [[Boston Massacre]]? A bunch of stone throwing patriots fighting a dictatorial government? Sound familiar? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm (unsurprisingly) going with the monks, and the whole NLD/NCGUB peace movement. See below. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

::Why are the monks more right? Do you support a coup against the dictatorship, or what?

::: For reasons stated elsewhere, it's not a coup as such - there's a case for it being the quelling of a hostile insurgency on the SPDC's part. Still, I would say that a peaceful overthrow of the SPDC, followed by a return to democracy, would be desirable, yes. I would ideally have as little bloodshed of the prodemocracy groups as possible, but even so, that would be dwarfed by the numbers who die in Burma every year in the countryside. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

==The government is more right==

==Analysis of Ed's points==

''Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.''

OK, if we go by a purely utilitarian calculus, then maybe AI's concentration on Guantanamo isn't the best, but that's a whole different argument. The issue is that letter writing campaigns '' '''do''' ''have an effect, and, if you want evidence that they're not all against America, I wrote five letters in my local student AI group today - one to Burma, one to Syria, one to China, one to Total (the oil company, also re:Burma), and one to Venezuela. Fairly cosmopolitan, I would say.

''How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda?''

It doesn't get as much press attention as the whole Aung San Suu Kyi business, but that's because there isn't much press attention at all on Burma.

OK, witness for the prosecution - a fairly big ''wrong'' on behalf of the SPDC. [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs3/Horton-2005.pdf Here]. Genocide? More likely than you think. Even if that didn't stick, you could throw pretty much all of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at them - what's going on there is terrible.

Also, I think that your left/right divide over Burma is not quite right. They're more like fascists, than anyone else - it's the worst elements of each.

'So that our great primary aim of our single Burman race to last forever we will meet with success, and for the greater national race to progress and develop, the easiest method is an aggressive campaign to
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|150px|right|thumb| Click to enlarge]]
dilute racial blood by taking foreign women who are not Burman ... Burman comrades-should we not be able to take such action, the Shan will endanger us in the future. Therefore, our Burmese race must be untied in this. We must take a firm hold of whatever situation is available to us. Even if it should come about that we, individuals, have permanently to abandon the Shan State, we must leave behind our own flesh and blood, our progeny and those related to us. Those women who are Shans and minorities must become in the end such that whenever a Burman offers money or makes advances to them, they are easily available almost as if they were prostitutes.'

Sound familiar? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

'''Response on AI:''' To the right is Amnesty internationals record of criticism from the period of 1995–1998. Notice how much criticism goes towards democratic/free governments as opposed to dictatorships and closed countries.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 16:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Tellingly short time period, not so relevant now, and anyway, are you going to use that to get yourself out of the issue now? Remember, when you do an AI campaign, it's not in favour of AI, it's in favour of the people that you write about in your letters. Are you going to deny the people of Burma your support over ''this''? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*You're the one who started the digression about [[Amnesty International]]. Tash and I are only responding to that side point. Now that he and I have won there, shall we return to what we were talking about before? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:Since when are Turkey (not allowed in the EU because of gross human rights violations) and Egypt (Brutally cracks down on free speech) and Pakistan 'free and democratic'? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but, by a cunning means, it was my point all along. All the media have stuff on the Burma conflict; could we spend our time better by actually doing something that helps the monks? Anyway, there's a whole lot of non-AI stuff up there. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

:Would anyone here like to contribute to the [[Myanmar]] article? It does need work! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

2007-09-27T19:13:42Z

Graham: /* This discussion is wrong */

{{debate}}

Which side is more "right" in the September 2007 Myanmar Monk March conflict?

== This discussion is wrong ==
This whole discussion is a fig leaf for CP editors who want conceal that they are unable to simply feel for the oppressed in Burma, regardless of religion and ideology. Enough said. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you, [[User: Order|Order]]. The abysmal record of AI has noting to do with the fact that Burma, and its people deserve freedom and democracy the same all all people. All other talk on this page is a [[deceit]] to bring relativism to this non-debate. And I am not even going to mention the other [[deceit|deceits]] on this page, inasmuch as the participants here have walked away from here, eschewing CP and have made multiple slanders against CP and its Admins and users, one has to question why they will not retract their [[deceit|deceits]] and just participate openly. I for one would welcome them. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:14, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

My opinion on this matter is quite clear. The mainpage should be edited to give a fairer analysis of the conflict in Burma. What really annoyed me was the claim that the protesters were under the thumb of some sort of Liberal Plot, and that the Military Dictatorship was being harshly treated. They are a military dictatorship. Nuff said.

Also, in light of most admins disagreeing with Ed, the news item still hasn't been taken down. And those who disagree with what is exclusively Ed Poor's opinion are receiving blocks. Its a disgrace. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:13, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==The monks are more right==

I have to go with the Monks. Remember the [[Boston Massacre]]? A bunch of stone throwing patriots fighting a dictatorial government? Sound familiar? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm (unsurprisingly) going with the monks, and the whole NLD/NCGUB peace movement. See below. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

::Why are the monks more right? Do you support a coup against the dictatorship, or what?

::: For reasons stated elsewhere, it's not a coup as such - there's a case for it being the quelling of a hostile insurgency on the SPDC's part. Still, I would say that a peaceful overthrow of the SPDC, followed by a return to democracy, would be desirable, yes. I would ideally have as little bloodshed of the prodemocracy groups as possible, but even so, that would be dwarfed by the numbers who die in Burma every year in the countryside. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

==The government is more right==

==Analysis of Ed's points==

''Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.''

OK, if we go by a purely utilitarian calculus, then maybe AI's concentration on Guantanamo isn't the best, but that's a whole different argument. The issue is that letter writing campaigns '' '''do''' ''have an effect, and, if you want evidence that they're not all against America, I wrote five letters in my local student AI group today - one to Burma, one to Syria, one to China, one to Total (the oil company, also re:Burma), and one to Venezuela. Fairly cosmopolitan, I would say.

''How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda?''

It doesn't get as much press attention as the whole Aung San Suu Kyi business, but that's because there isn't much press attention at all on Burma.

OK, witness for the prosecution - a fairly big ''wrong'' on behalf of the SPDC. [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs3/Horton-2005.pdf Here]. Genocide? More likely than you think. Even if that didn't stick, you could throw pretty much all of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at them - what's going on there is terrible.

Also, I think that your left/right divide over Burma is not quite right. They're more like fascists, than anyone else - it's the worst elements of each.

'So that our great primary aim of our single Burman race to last forever we will meet with success, and for the greater national race to progress and develop, the easiest method is an aggressive campaign to
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|150px|right|thumb| Click to enlarge]]
dilute racial blood by taking foreign women who are not Burman ... Burman comrades-should we not be able to take such action, the Shan will endanger us in the future. Therefore, our Burmese race must be untied in this. We must take a firm hold of whatever situation is available to us. Even if it should come about that we, individuals, have permanently to abandon the Shan State, we must leave behind our own flesh and blood, our progeny and those related to us. Those women who are Shans and minorities must become in the end such that whenever a Burman offers money or makes advances to them, they are easily available almost as if they were prostitutes.'

Sound familiar? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

'''Response on AI:''' To the right is Amnesty internationals record of criticism from the period of 1995–1998. Notice how much criticism goes towards democratic/free governments as opposed to dictatorships and closed countries.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 16:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Tellingly short time period, not so relevant now, and anyway, are you going to use that to get yourself out of the issue now? Remember, when you do an AI campaign, it's not in favour of AI, it's in favour of the people that you write about in your letters. Are you going to deny the people of Burma your support over ''this''? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*You're the one who started the digression about [[Amnesty International]]. Tash and I are only responding to that side point. Now that he and I have won there, shall we return to what we were talking about before? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:Since when are Turkey (not allowed in the EU because of gross human rights violations) and Egypt (Brutally cracks down on free speech) and Pakistan 'free and democratic'? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but, by a cunning means, it was my point all along. All the media have stuff on the Burma conflict; could we spend our time better by actually doing something that helps the monks? Anyway, there's a whole lot of non-AI stuff up there. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

:Would anyone here like to contribute to the [[Myanmar]] article? It does need work! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Burma

2007-09-27T19:11:10Z

Graham: /* Sept 2007 uprising */

The source for the addition of info to this article is here: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html]. This could be a good place to start when adding basic info, then building it up to contain the current events happening now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Nice work - I'll put some of my own stuff up tomorrow. Godspeed! --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

:Here's the NLD's Manifesto [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/NLDElectionManifesto1989.htm]. We should see what thier position on [[abortion]] before posting any of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Sept 2007 uprising==

The viewpoint of Western liberals seems to be that any police shootings of unarmed civilians is absolutely inexcusable, no matter what the provocation is.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_as/myanmar

Even trying to grab weapons away from police - in response to being told to disperse - is not considered by liberals to be sufficient justification for police to "open fire" on a crowd. I guess the cops are supposed to "take the first bullet", i.e., suffer the first wounds.

What I suspect is that it may be a strategy on the part of revolutionaries to attract sympathy by artfully provoking the police into -- seemingly -- firing the first shot in the battle. The aim is to blame the initiation of violence on the security forces. The idea that goading someone into harming you is itself a provocation of violence - and that the provocateur is not entirely innocent is never considered by liberals. They claim an unlimited right to provoke, to break rules. Nothing they do ever merits a severe response.

I am not siding with the government, as several liberals have posted or emailed me privately. I am addressing one issue only: who started what, and is the force used by the various sides justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:You write as though the "liberals" acknowledge that the protesters did try to grab weapons, and that this is not sufficient justification for the police to shoot.
:But the article you linked to did not acknowledge that the protesters did this. It merely reported the claim from the government that this had happened. As such, there was no clear inference, as you claim, that the provocation was not just cause for the police to fire.
:Possibly another factor is that there are reports of soldiers shaving their heads and of the army buying monks robes, the implication being that soldiers would try and infiltrate the monks, allegedly to provide provocation for police action by making it appear that the monks did not remain peaceful. So even if "monks" did try and grab weapons, were they really monks, or soldiers planted in the crowd?
:Who started what, and was the force justified? We are talking about a largely-peaceful protest against an oppressive military dictatorship. A dictatorship that reportedly did shoot into a crowd of peaceful protesters in 1988, killing ''thousands''. You are correct. Perhaps in specific incidents the police were justified. Overall, justice seems to be on the side of the protesters.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::We have to take into consideration that Burma/Myanmar went communist after World War II, then a military takeover sometime in the 1970s. It's an Asian contry with ties to China, so what I'm seeing in the news is something similar to the student revolt in Beijing back in 1989. The Burmese want freedom, and those in charge are not going to let it happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:04, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::It's all moot now, because the security forces opened fire on a crowd that refused to disperse. Unless the crowd was assaulting the police or army was anything as deadly as heavy bricks or rocks, this would be excessive force.

:::Although no one has asked, my opinion is that the way to disperse a crowd of protesters is to arrest them one at a time. Only rough up those who resist. And carefully avoid shooting anyone if at all possible. It takes longer this way, but it's a better way to treat your people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed, if this is what you think, then why did you post what you did and more importantly why have you not reverted it? I don't think these are unreasonable questions in light of what is happening over there as we speak. These people deserve our support, not cynicism. It kind of almost reminds me of the time when Rwanda was suffering a genocide and all the news and radio stations could do was pedantically debate whether it was 'genocide' or 'mass killings'. Either way, what you are currently mentioning in the mainpage is a moot point, and you should remove it in light of almost every single person in conservapedia disagreeing with you. Please do not block me for expressing my opinion. Sincerely,

Graham. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Scotland

2007-09-26T17:35:04Z

Graham: Your damn right. Making this readable for you!

in scottland, the kilt(that spelled right?) isnt that like your family's colors? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes Will N, the kilt is a tradtional dress still worn at weddings and social functions that is made in the clan (think family) tartan. Each tartan is comprised of colours specific to that family.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 12:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kilts ==

Kilts are an item of dress, it is the tartan that has an association with families, or more accurately, Clan. In addition many public bodies have their own particular tartan. In the picture, Jack McConnell is seen wearing a pin-stripe kilt as part of an effort to promote Tartan Day.

Kilts are often made from Family/Clan Tartans, though not exclusively - there are many designs that have no particular family affiliation (such as Regimental designs) - Kilts are aso worn with somewhat plainer designs as well, and have even been made from leather..
I think the map is more appropriate than the pic of Jack McConnell - he is an elected representative, and does not necessarily epitomise Scottishness (indeed - pending the outcome of the general election on Thursday 03-May-2007, he may or may not continue as First Minister.) --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 17:45, 01 May 2007 (BST)

I've replaced the picture with one more <s>dull</s> appropriate.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 08:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== homosexuality and the kilt - the link ==
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|A scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)([http://photos3.flickr.com/3348884_7b5cbe90be.jpg])]]'
em there is none - and I suggest any americans who visit scotland don't make suggest that linkage to members of, for example, her Maj's 51 (Scottish) Brigade. A frank and full exchange of viewpoints might then occur! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:This being Conservapedia, surely one would expect the description of Scotland by the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]], to be included in the article. He described Scotland as a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''"<ref>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/</ref>. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not in the lead. And not [[out of context]]. Also, a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid [[kilt]] makes more of a statement about [[homosexuality]], [[gender identity disorder]] or [[cross-dressing]] than it does about Scotland. Try to keep your mind on the purpose of this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What? since when is a skirt and a kilt the same thing? Ed, you're way in the wrong on this one. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, you are wrong - check out this website to see how the kilt is evolving - traditional kilts are only part of it [http://www.21stcenturykilts.com/home.htm].

::::Wrong about what? Please restate the assertion you think I have made. (The fashion photo you showed me of contemporary young people doesn't tell me what you mean.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: You asserted that "a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid kilt makes more of a statement about homosexuality, gender identity disorder or cross-dressing than it does about Scotland." Whereas the link I provided shows that all kinds of non-traditional materials (denim, leather, camouflage patterns, tweed, pinstripe suit cloth, etc.) are being used to make kilts. The photo is of a man in a modern kilt. You assert that it is a skirt. Homosexuality and transvestisism are in no way associated with modern kilts. You assert that they are. To Scots, such words are particularly offensive.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 09:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Ed Poor|Ed]], even if the quote was [[out of context]] what is wrong with showing the conservative view of Scotland? Pro-Gaiety and homosexualism is rife in Scotland:
::*The repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm</ref>
::*The legalisation of so called gay marriage <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm </ref>
::*Allowing homosexuals to adopt children <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 </ref>
::*Allowing homosexual teachers to teach homosexual sex to children <ref>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006</ref>
::*Open encouragement of homosexual soldiers and policemen <ref>http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm</ref>
::*The banning of pro-Christian opinions at sports events <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007</ref>
::Those are just a few from the multitude of examples of how the [[homosexual agenda]] is permeating Scotland. Surely Scotland is a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''" and this should be reflected here?
::[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 09:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Kilts are *not* skirts - the difference isn't subtle... it's interesting the connection some draw between 'cross-dressing' and kilt wearing; whenever I wear my kilt (especially in England and elsewhere) it usually attracts lots of attention from women...
'a dark country full of homosexuals' - I'm not even going to be drawn on that one, but featuring it prominently hardly does anything for the credibility of the article as a whole. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:03, 02 May 2007 (BST)

:Spin, your statement that a [[kilt]] is not a skirt disagrees with the caption Nick put on the image to our upper right. The words ''Scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)'' imply (1) that the man was wearing a skirt and (2) that a skirt is known as a kilt in Scotland.

:Would the two of you please sort this out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I see your point. The article that Jack McConnell is wearing is a kilt. Skirts are not known as kilts - the two words are not synonymous. Although kilts are mostly associated with male attire, this isn't universally true by any means. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:21, 02 May 2007 (BST)

Might be worth clarifying the whole kilt issue, either by adding to this article (Traditional Attire section?) or by creating a separate linked page for the kilt. Perhaps one of our resident Scots would be able to? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy that the image be replaced with a piper but I'm having difficulty finding a fair use one. Probably worth noting that most images of pipers will be in full ceremonial garb (kilt, sporran, etc). Perhaps someone will have more luck than I finding a suitable image. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of going round in circles, again the Pat Robertson comment - with respect, who is this guy? (I don't mean literally - I know who he is) There is no indication of how his opinion is relevant - whether or not you consider it to be true, it just sounds like abuse, which just undermines the credibility of (at least) the whole article. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 11:04, 04 May 2007 (BST)

:Mr. Robertson's opinion is important as an example of Conservative thinking. Here at Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] is taken very seriously as can be seen at that article and others such as [[homosexual agenda]], [[gay rights]], [[homophobia]] and their accompanying talk pages. It is important that such matters are given a prominent position in Conservapedia, for example the [[Main Page]] news items such as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=139637 this], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=131062 this], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=130326 this] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=85632 this]. Such conservative facts ([[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|Differences with Wikipedia No. 9]]) are always displayed prominently and not censored like at the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]. In fact I think the information in question should appear right at the top of the article.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok. Pat Robertson's opinions are clearly in line with many(most? ..I don't know) conservative thinkers, at least in the US. ('Conservative' has a related but slightly different meaning in the UK)

::(from [[Racism]]) 'Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions' - articles in the press are designed to be provocative and inflammatory - that doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the truth of the information they refer to, but they are far from a foolproof source, not very indicative of the nature of a culture.
::I'm not accusing Pat Robertson of racism, but he's a bit close to the wire. (I suspect he would argue about 'perceived notions' - and whether he was making a 'broad generalisation')

::I'm not sure what you mean by 'Conservative Facts' - it's definitely a fact that Pat Robertson said that, but the truth of it is a different thing altogether..

::I understand that it is important that the guiding principles of Conservapedia are enforced, but the article seems to have more to say about the authors' abhorrence of homosexuality than it does about it's subject matter - irrespective of your views, that doesn't do any good at all. [[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 11:03, 07 May 2007 (BST)

:::[[Liberal]]ism seems to have won the day and the truth about the pernicious [[homosexual agenda]] has been ''hidden away'' in the article [[Church of Scotland]] where I assume the hope is that no one will find it.
:::People looking for information about Scotland are being denied some very important [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative facts]]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: "the truth about the pernicious [[homosexual agenda]]" Ah yes. That old chestnut. Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:49, 14 May 2007 (BST)

:::Dèan magadh air na-h pàrras amadain an seo. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: ok.. pretty sure that wasn't what I was doing. Anyway - this isn't especially productive. People reading the article will doubtless make up their own minds as to the credibility of the information therein, and the peculiar list of references. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (BST)

:: Ok, I AM Scottish, and a kilt is NOT A SKIRT! IT IS ALSO NOT WHAT A SKIRT IS CALLED IN SCOTLAND! WE CALL THEM SKIRTS! YES WE ACTUALLY DO SPEAK ENGLISH! SOME OF US ARE IN FACT QUITE LITERATE! I WOULD THANK YOU KINDLY TO TAKE THAT GARBAGE OFF OF THIS PAGE! --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 14:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What is [http://scotweb-objects.com/images/items/thumbs/283x/Q90_sr_swhdr_girlskilt_w.jpg this] then? Looks like a skirt to me, even if it is caled a ''kilt.'' Most dictionaries would agree that a skirt is 
# The part of a garment, such as a dress or coat, that '''hangs freely from the waist down.'''
# A garment hanging from the waist and '''worn by women and girls.'''
# A part or attachment resembling the skirt of a garment, especially:
# One of the leather flaps hanging from the side of a saddle.
# The lower outer section of a rocket vehicle.
# A flexible strip hanging from the base of an air-cushion vehicle.
# A piece of fabric that extends over or beyond something to afford protection. 
The transvestite - or otherwise - habits of Scotsmen aside, a "kilt" is most definitely a "skirt" by definition. And finally, why do kilt wearers not simply wear the masculine version of the tartan garment, the "trews"? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 15:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Trews are not a 'masculine version of the tartan garment'. I think the members of the Royal Regiment of Scotland who wear kilts and sporrans as part of their dress uniforms might take exception to the above.. indeed, Scottish troops wore kilts in combat as late as 1940. (not so much by the second world war, but compared to the uniforms worn by other British troops in (for example) the Napoleonic Wars, the kilt was a remarkably practical garment) See also [http://www.cabarfeidh.com/kilts_in_the_past.htm www.cabarfeidh.com/kilts_in_the_past.htm] [[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:38, 29 May 2007 (BST)

I think some of you need to get out more! See the world. Understand the world and accept the differences. Some of the closed-minded piffle that has been spouted above shows not only ignorance, but deliberate ignorance from minds too wrapped up in their own ideological and cultural prison to accept that all people are not American. A kilt is a kilt is a kilt. It has nothing at all to do with being gay. It is an item of traditional dress that is worn with pride - fierce pride - and sometimes nostalgia and with a sense of belonging. There is nothing equivocal about the kilt. Unlike the ubiquitous suit and tie, or jeans and teeshirt, it says something proud and definite. It says "I am a Scot!" And what is wrong with that? Yes. He may even be gay. But that's no more likely than if he was a from any other country in the world. Ask the Pope in his lovely white outfit if he is gay. Check out the Greek guard...they're really pretty. Say something to the cop in Samoa (thats Samoa - not American Samoa - where they still hold on to tradition and their family values)and their cops, both male and female, wear a nice blue lap lap, and carry a nice big stick! God made man in ''His'' image. Now it seems we have many Americans trying to make man into theirs!! Please show a bit of respect. If the rest of the world can accept a Scot in his kilt for what it is, why can't you? "Honi soit qui mal y pense"! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

I'm sorry but I'm Scottish and I had to delete the entire section labled "Scotland and Cultural Controversies". I will not stand idly by and see my country being run down in print. Some of the points made were out and out lies. Protection for paedophiles? Utter nonsense. Repeating Pat Robertsons claims that Scotland is a "dark country full of homosexuals" is plain wrong and a touch hypocritical coming from an American. Some facts; political correctness is an American invention; gay liberation is an American invention; the sexual "revolution" was an American invention. People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. And what is this obsession with homosexuality? Scotland has 2000 years of recorded history, was at the forefront of the industrial revolution, has given the world many writers, philosophers, soldiers, statesmen, scientists, engineers as well as the Presbyterrian religon but the Conservapedia article devotes about 10% of its article on Scotland on supposed support for the "homosexual agenda". I can tell you from a position of authority (I do live here) that the inference is melodramatic and overstated. Oh, and a kilt is definetely not a skirt. Just ask some of the Scottish troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and see the response you get.

== Cities ==

Six? [[Inverness]] is very small for a city. Inhabitants of [[Perth]] (which is much larger) and elsewhere will be annoyed by not being mentioned.

You might usefully put a link somewhere here to [[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's partly why I added in the word "major" to the section. That way other cities wouldn't feel as slighted since it'd be near impossible to add every single one to the list. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I meant to say, ''You might usefully put a link somewhere here to'' <nowiki>[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Gotcha ... unfortunately you'll have to go to a sysop now as the article is re-locked. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocking has the unfortunate consequence of perpetrating historical inaccuracy. Example: The Union of England Scotland and Ireland came about in 1801, not 1707. Can someone "break in" and change that please.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Union with England ==

The line "The current Chancellor of the Exchequer, and expected future prime minister Gordon Brown, is Scottish." is now factually incorrect, Gordon Brown is now the current prime minister of the United Kingdom.
:Protecting sysop informed :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Opening up sometime? ==

Any chance this article will become unlocked again? It has been close to two months and that's usually a pretty long time for vandals to be lurking around. Just a thought [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:William Wallace

2007-09-26T15:20:09Z

Graham: New page: Learn Together, At a tutorial in University last year, the claim that Robert I fought with Edward I at Falkirk was a hot topic, but one which most experts disregard. What is beyond any sh...

Learn Together,

At a tutorial in University last year, the claim that Robert I fought with Edward I at Falkirk was a hot topic, but one which most experts disregard. What is beyond any shadow of a doubt is that he was on his side at one stage of the war, but did not actively contribute to Edward's campaign militarily. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Saladin

2007-09-26T14:52:53Z

Graham:

[[Image:Saladin.jpg|right|thumb|Saladin]]
'''Saladin''' or '''Salah al-Din''' ([[Arabic]]: صلاح الدين الأيوبي) was a [[Kurdish]] [[Muslim]] Sultan who died March 4, 1193. He fought against the [[Crusaders]] in the [[Crusades]]. He was famous for defeating the Christian forces and retaking [[Jerusalem]], and his encounters with Richard I of England is recounted throughout the ages as one of the most romantic military rivalries of all time. Regularly regarded as a fine example of chivalry, both Richard and Saldin treated each other with enormous respect during the conflict, and Saladin sent Richard fruit and other goods when he was suffering from severe [[dysentry]] during the campaign. Similarily, Richard sent Saladin fine English woolens when he heard that Saladin was suffering from flu. Nevertheless, Richard executed thousands of Prisoners outside the walls of [[Acre]] during the siege, an act Saladin did not resemble by his actions throughout the campaign whatsoever.

Saladin was generally a successful general, but he was defeated by [[Richard I]] (who was the King of [[England]] at the time) at the battle of Arsuf in 1191. He also suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Montgisard in 1177 against King [[Baldwin IV]] of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

He first overthrew the [[Fatimid]] dynasty of Egypt, abandoning its [[Shiite]] religion in the process, and then conqured [[Syria]].

[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Crusades]]

William Wallace

2007-09-26T14:46:13Z

Graham: Removing bogus claims that King Robert fought with Edward at Falkirk - this is an encyclopedia, and I don't care what Braveheart told you.

'''William Wallace''' was a fighter for Scottish independence after [[King Edward I]] of [[England]] conquered [[Scotland]] in 1296 A.D. Wallace defeated the Earl of Warenne in the [[Battle of Stirling Bridge|Battle of Cambuskenneth Bridge]] in 1297 and then went on the offensive by raiding into Northumberland and Durham in England. Edward led an invasion of Scotland and defeated Wallace at the [[Battle of Falkirk]] destroying his army. It was one of the first major uses of the [[longbow]] by the English. Wallace himself was captured and executed in 1305.

A later Scottish alliance with [[France]] was part of the cause of the [[Hundred Years War]].

Wallace was the subject of the movie [[Braveheart]] when he was played by [[Mel Gibson]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wallace, William}}

[[category:history]]
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[category:Scotland]]

High Middle Ages

2007-09-26T14:43:11Z

Graham:

{{Middle Ages}}The High Middle Ages was the period of the middle ages from 1000 to 1300 AD. During this time, Europe's population flourished, her [[nation-states]] arose, and the [[Crusades]] took place. It was also a time of great and frequent war, famine and pestilence, with superstition and tradition preventing any notable advancements in science or the arts. It is generally agreed that the High Medieval Period is essentially the time in which most Nation States can trace their lineage to, but was also a dark time for the creative or scientific professions.

The High Middle Ages period saw the rise of the [[Normans]] as a European power - their culture and more importantly their military influenced future events in [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], [[Ireland]], [[France]], [[Byzantium]] and [[Sicily]]. Having destroyed the Anglo-Saxon model of societal organisation, the Normans continued to implement [[Feudalism]] to the English countryside, replacing the old English thegns and Lords with a new, Norman Elite. Over the following years due to a result of military action of interchanging marriages the Normans advanced their influence into the sovereign nation of Scotland, except the Scots remained independent of domination from the English. Some of the mighties families in Scotland could trace their lineage to Norman Lords around the time of the Great Scottish Revolt under [[William Wallace]] and [[King Robert I]] in 1297.

*Under construction

[[category:European History]]

Talk:Chinese Communist Party

2007-09-26T13:54:09Z

Graham: /* Should we mention the modern drive to capitalism? */

Here's some material that perhaps could be worked in somewhere; probably needs some more groundwork on CCP's control of the military. I lost the original source from PRA's site (People's Revolutionary Army). These are the strong arm badboys, or "commisars", who enforce ideological "correctness" in the ranks.
::There is a page called "gongchandang" on the site - it means, "Communist Party" in Chinese, and so should be basically part of this page, but some eejit put it as the title of an article on the Nationalists. So currently, there are two articles about the CCP, or with titles that are the same.

==Discipline Inspection Commission==

:The Discipline Inspection Commission of the Central Military Commission (CMC) held a plenary meeting on September 26 to study and discuss the spirit of the 4th Plenum of the 16th Party Central Committee and the Enlarged Meeting of the Central Military Commission and the 4th Plenary Session of the Central Discipline Inspection Commission, and study ways to implement them.

:The meeting emphasized that discipline inspection commissions at all levels of the army must take the study and implementation of the spirit of the 4th Plenum of the 16th Central Committee of the Party and the Enlarged Meeting of the Central Military Commission as an important political task and grasp it firmly and do it successfully so as to give full play to their functionary role and provide powerful political, ideological, disciplinary and working-style guarantee. We must earnestly implement Chairman Hu Jintao's important instruction given at the Enlarged Meeting of the Central Military Commission on enhancing the capabilities of Party organizations at various levels of the army, further strengthen the building of discipline inspection commissions at various levels, constantly enhance their discipline inspection capability by centering on the central task of the army, enhance the capability to effectively　supervise high- and medium-level cadres, improve the capability of fostering inner-Party democracy and protecting the Party member's rights, enhance the capability of enforcing discipline and handling cases according to law, foster the capability to assist the Party committees to improve the Party's style of work, organize and coordinate the fight against corruption, and do a better job of fighting against corruption and improving the Party's style of work in the army, so as to make new contributions to the army building in an all-round way.

:5. Discipline inspection organizations of the Party

:Discipline inspection organizations of the Party consist of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels and the grassroots Party commissions for discipline inspection.

:The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection works under the leadership of the Party Central Committee.

:The local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels and the grassroots Party commissions for discipline inspection work under the dual leadership of the Party committee at the same level and Party commission for discipline inspection at the next higher level.

:The term of each Party commission for discipline inspection is the same as that of the Party committee at the same level.

:The plenary session of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection elects its standing committee, secretary and deputy secretaries and reports this to the Party Central Committee for approval.

:The plenary sessions of local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels elect the standing committee and secretary and deputy secretaries, and the results are passed by the Party committee at the same level and reported to the Party committee at the next higher level for approval.

:Whether a discipline inspection commission or discipline inspection members for a grassroots Party committee shall be established or put into position is to be decided by a Party organization at the next higher level in light of specific conditions.

:A general Party branch committee and a Party branch committee shall include discipline inspection members.

:The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection may, if needed, accredit a discipline inspection group or discipline inspectors to central Party and state organs.

:Leaders of the discipline inspection group or discipline inspectors may attend, as non-voting members, related conferences organized by Party leaders of the organ concerned.

:Their work must be supported by the Party leaders and organizations of the organ concerned.

==Pro-communist whitewash==

Cut from article:

:It was 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.

This is the usual "Communism isn't communist" bullshit.
*It makes the claim that [[totalitarianism]] is incompatible with Communism. Actually, communism is the foremost of the totalitarian systems.
*It makes the ironic (but false) claim that Chinese Communism only "claims to align itself towards [[Communism]]", when in fact it has been one of the two chief examples of Communist empires of the 20th century. We all recall that each Chinese citizen in Red China (i.e., the mainland) was required to keep a copy of Mao's book in his possession at all times.

We need a better article on [[Communism]] which shows that totalitarian control of the people was always part of Soviet and Maoist communism.

We must not give in to pro-Communist propaganda which distracts from the FACT that Communism is anti-God, anti-freedom, and anti-life. 120 to 200 million civilians killed by execution or starvation, the Soviet GULAGs, the Chinese forced abortions, censorship, historical revisionism, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Should we mention the modern drive to capitalism?==

Perhaps we should mention the drive towards capitalism in the last few decades within the party, without taking away from a focus on its horrible human rights record? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:If you'll define "capitalism", we can discuss this. Were you referring in any way to [[free market]] economics? You know, the system in which buyers and sellers are permitted to come to mutually satisfactory arrangements without government interference. Let's say you want to sell your car for $2,000 and I agree. What business is that of the government? (And would you call that [[Capitalism]] as if to brand it with a dirty word, or would you call that economic freedom? It's a [[win-win]] deal for both parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Capitalism in its simplest sense - the ability to buy and sell with undue government interference. There is no implementation of capitalism in the modern world in the manner you have mentioned - were we to do that today, there would be taxes, licence's and motor quality checks to consider. China has become a Capitalist country, similar to the USA. Capitalism is an economic theory which has an impact on the way people live their lives. China is communist is name only, comparable to the person who says he is a Christian, yet never attends Church, has never read the Bible and doesn't live his life under the guidance of Christian morals. The totalitarianism into which I'm sure you will divulge, is a byproduct of statism, a leftover of totalitarian socialism which will most likely peter out as the Chinese middle class continues to grow. This should all be taken into consideration in a sensible article about the Chinese communist party. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:11, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I wish you'd make up your mind. You said both that (A) there is no implementation of capitalism in the modern world and that (B) China and USA are capitalist. I'll read the rest of your comment after this contradiction is resolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:36, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I resolved this contradiction in the rest of my comment. The world is not black and white Ed, we cannot dumb down capitalism or communism into a few concise sentances. A pioneer of the law profession once said that 'Life is an exercise in the exceptions'. Read the rest of my comment, and then reply. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::"Drive toward capitalism" is commie prop; all societies, all, are capitalistic. By "drive toward capitalism" all you are referring to is ownership of capital assets by party bosses -- ownership by theft of assets beginning several decades ago. And this has been '' how'' all Communist parties have always functioned.

::Now, you may be referring to ''some'' people being allowed to own chattel, such as cars and other personal property; this is not a "drive toward capitalism," this would be considered relaxing of some human rights abuse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

OK then Rob, you just tell me what is the difference economically between the USA and China. I'm sure you will absolutely no differences other than pedantic little points. Having had a cousin travel through China, she has told me that it is rapidly developing in an American, Capitalism culture. Every aspect of the economy is freeing up in ways unimaginable twenty years ago. Their human rights records is a disgrace, and I am not taking away from that whatsoever. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2007-09-25T23:45:37Z

Graham: /* Environmental hoaxes and hogwash */

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

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

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

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

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

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== contradiction in the definition ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

== Politicization ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Archiving ==

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

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

==Democratic Party==

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

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

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

==American Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Clinton==

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

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

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Another Example ==

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

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

== Catalog or informative article? ==

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

==Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Chinese Communist Party

2007-09-25T23:43:18Z

Graham: /* Should we mention the modern drive to capitalism? */

Talk:Deceit

2007-09-25T23:37:48Z

Graham: /* Environmental hoaxes and hogwash */

Talk:Deceit

2007-09-25T23:22:05Z

Graham: /* Environmental hoaxes and hogwash */

Talk:Norman Finkelstein

2007-09-25T23:16:15Z

Graham:

==ATTN: Ed==

''Finkelstein wishes Jews would just shut up about it.'' Not very encyclopedic? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:''banned for personal attacks - let that be a lesson to CP users)'' While I'm sure this edit summary wasn't relating to me, Ed, but just assuming that it is, I'm sorry if it looks like I was personally attacking you. I'll edit that bit out. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:16, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Chinese Communist Party

2007-09-25T23:11:25Z

Graham: /* Should we mention the modern drive to capitalism? */

Here's some material that perhaps could be worked in somewhere; probably needs some more groundwork on CCP's control of the military. I lost the original source from PRA's site (People's Revolutionary Army). These are the strong arm badboys, or "commisars", who enforce ideological "correctness" in the ranks.
::There is a page called "gongchandang" on the site - it means, "Communist Party" in Chinese, and so should be basically part of this page, but some eejit put it as the title of an article on the Nationalists. So currently, there are two articles about the CCP, or with titles that are the same.

==Discipline Inspection Commission==

:The Discipline Inspection Commission of the Central Military Commission (CMC) held a plenary meeting on September 26 to study and discuss the spirit of the 4th Plenum of the 16th Party Central Committee and the Enlarged Meeting of the Central Military Commission and the 4th Plenary Session of the Central Discipline Inspection Commission, and study ways to implement them.

:The meeting emphasized that discipline inspection commissions at all levels of the army must take the study and implementation of the spirit of the 4th Plenum of the 16th Central Committee of the Party and the Enlarged Meeting of the Central Military Commission as an important political task and grasp it firmly and do it successfully so as to give full play to their functionary role and provide powerful political, ideological, disciplinary and working-style guarantee. We must earnestly implement Chairman Hu Jintao's important instruction given at the Enlarged Meeting of the Central Military Commission on enhancing the capabilities of Party organizations at various levels of the army, further strengthen the building of discipline inspection commissions at various levels, constantly enhance their discipline inspection capability by centering on the central task of the army, enhance the capability to effectively　supervise high- and medium-level cadres, improve the capability of fostering inner-Party democracy and protecting the Party member's rights, enhance the capability of enforcing discipline and handling cases according to law, foster the capability to assist the Party committees to improve the Party's style of work, organize and coordinate the fight against corruption, and do a better job of fighting against corruption and improving the Party's style of work in the army, so as to make new contributions to the army building in an all-round way.

:5. Discipline inspection organizations of the Party

:Discipline inspection organizations of the Party consist of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels and the grassroots Party commissions for discipline inspection.

:The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection works under the leadership of the Party Central Committee.

:The local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels and the grassroots Party commissions for discipline inspection work under the dual leadership of the Party committee at the same level and Party commission for discipline inspection at the next higher level.

:The term of each Party commission for discipline inspection is the same as that of the Party committee at the same level.

:The plenary session of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection elects its standing committee, secretary and deputy secretaries and reports this to the Party Central Committee for approval.

:The plenary sessions of local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels elect the standing committee and secretary and deputy secretaries, and the results are passed by the Party committee at the same level and reported to the Party committee at the next higher level for approval.

:Whether a discipline inspection commission or discipline inspection members for a grassroots Party committee shall be established or put into position is to be decided by a Party organization at the next higher level in light of specific conditions.

:A general Party branch committee and a Party branch committee shall include discipline inspection members.

:The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection may, if needed, accredit a discipline inspection group or discipline inspectors to central Party and state organs.

:Leaders of the discipline inspection group or discipline inspectors may attend, as non-voting members, related conferences organized by Party leaders of the organ concerned.

:Their work must be supported by the Party leaders and organizations of the organ concerned.

==Pro-communist whitewash==

Cut from article:

:It was 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.

This is the usual "Communism isn't communist" bullshit.
*It makes the claim that [[totalitarianism]] is incompatible with Communism. Actually, communism is the foremost of the totalitarian systems.
*It makes the ironic (but false) claim that Chinese Communism only "claims to align itself towards [[Communism]]", when in fact it has been one of the two chief examples of Communist empires of the 20th century. We all recall that each Chinese citizen in Red China (i.e., the mainland) was required to keep a copy of Mao's book in his possession at all times.

We need a better article on [[Communism]] which shows that totalitarian control of the people was always part of Soviet and Maoist communism.

We must not give in to pro-Communist propaganda which distracts from the FACT that Communism is anti-God, anti-freedom, and anti-life. 120 to 200 million civilians killed by execution or starvation, the Soviet GULAGs, the Chinese forced abortions, censorship, historical revisionism, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Should we mention the modern drive to capitalism?==

Perhaps we should mention the drive towards capitalism in the last few decades within the party, without taking away from a focus on its horrible human rights record? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:If you'll define "capitalism", we can discuss this. Were you referring in any way to [[free market]] economics? You know, the system in which buyers and sellers are permitted to come to mutually satisfactory arrangements without government interference. Let's say you want to sell your car for $2,000 and I agree. What business is that of the government? (And would you call that [[Capitalism]] as if to brand it with a dirty word, or would you call that economic freedom? It's a [[win-win]] deal for both parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Capitalism in its simplest sense - the ability to buy and sell with undue government interference. There is no implementation of capitalism in the modern world in the manner you have mentioned - were we to do that today, there would be taxes, licence's and motor quality checks to consider. China has become a Capitalist country, similar to the USA. Capitalism is an economic theory which has an impact on the way people live their lives. China is communist is name only, comparable to the person who says he is a Christian, yet never attends Church, has never read the Bible and doesn't live his life under the guidance of Christian morals. The totalitarianism into which I'm sure you will divulge, is a byproduct of statism, a leftover of totalitarian socialism which will most likely peter out as the Chinese middle class continues to grow. This should all be taken into consideration in a sensible article about the Chinese communist party. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:11, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Norman Finkelstein

2007-09-25T22:48:24Z

Graham: New page: ==looks like a kid wrote this bit== ''Finkelstein wishes Jews would just shut up about it.'' Not very encyclopedic? ~~~~

==looks like a kid wrote this bit==

''Finkelstein wishes Jews would just shut up about it.'' Not very encyclopedic? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:48, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative

2007-09-25T21:58:18Z

Graham: /* Lincoln a Conservative? */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

These people are absolutely right, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. In the 1860's and up until the 20th Century and about the New Deal era, the Republicans were America's liberal party.

Come on guys, Lincoln is well known as a Liberal; By his deeds and his words... We all know the greatest speeches were written by Liberals! *Cough* Seriously though, I know you guys want to claim all of histories great characters to your side of the fence (Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln (You'd probably make a stab for Roosevelt and Truman if you had the chance) but give credit where credit is due - Lincoln was a Liberal. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Chinese Communist Party

2007-09-25T21:53:59Z

Graham: /* Pro-communist whitewash */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-25T20:22:47Z

Graham: /* Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. */

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



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-25T19:10:02Z

Graham: /* Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. */

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-09-25T17:15:43Z

Graham: /* Good */

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the stupidest thing i have ever read.

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades. The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe. Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways. I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -> Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: It was bad because it was bloody? All wars are bloody. I suggest that you give us some more substantive reasons, and put them under "Bad". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I"m not saying it was bad because it was bloody - I'm saying it was bad because of the horrible atrocities based on race. It was in effect a genocide (The sack of Jerusalem, that is) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves. like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. "live and let live" seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that "dont care/believe about religion/god" does not equal "im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag" and leave me out of the quarrel.

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals. AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge. Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher. Not all animals are scavangers. As Moses said, "ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why does this topic even exist? Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on. Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected. Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I get it. When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says "convert or die," you're supposed to convert. Duh. Why didn't I think of that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land. There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time. Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long. [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today. Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm..... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right. War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators "Lord", and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves? Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully. Bowing to a king and calling senators "Lord"? How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators "Senator"? I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.
by 1718

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-25T17:14:42Z

Graham: /* Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. */

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-09-25T16:49:34Z

Graham: /* Good */

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the stupidest thing i have ever read.

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades. The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe. Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways. I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -> Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves. like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. "live and let live" seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that "dont care/believe about religion/god" does not equal "im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag" and leave me out of the quarrel.

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals. AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge. Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher. Not all animals are scavangers. As Moses said, "ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why does this topic even exist? Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on. Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected. Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I get it. When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says "convert or die," you're supposed to convert. Duh. Why didn't I think of that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land. There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time. Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long. [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today. Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm..... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right. War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators "Lord", and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves? Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully. Bowing to a king and calling senators "Lord"? How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators "Senator"? I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.
by 1718

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-25T16:43:02Z

Graham: /* Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-25T15:24:41Z

Graham: /* Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. */

Communism

2007-09-25T14:20:22Z

Graham:

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation .]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" without personal property, however, no Communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. In less than the past 100 years, Communist governments have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people, although it must be mentioned that the rapidly developing capitalist system of China can only be labeled nominal Communism.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
== Communism and Militant Atheism ==
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The atheism in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Theory and horror==
[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|right|200px|The Hammer and Sickle is an offensive symbol of oppression in much of the world in the same way the [[Swastika]] is. It is the international symbol of communism.]]
It is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. Yet party members (there is only one Party) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the perennial shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various Communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," i.e. legalized theft.

Marx also coined the disparaging atheistic dictum "religion is the opium of the masses", expressing the fundamental Marxist view that the proletariat have been brainwashed by religion, and thus a ''Nomenklatura'' of ''[[enlightened]]'' party members with this [[esoteric]] knowledge and foresight are justified in enslaving the masses, for their own benefit.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include [[Stalin]], [[Engels]], [[Lenin]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Pol Pot]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

==See also==
*[[Nazism]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Cults]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Intolerance

2007-09-25T14:18:35Z

Graham:

[[Image:Criticism-of-Religion.jpg|thumb|Criticism of Religions is Not Free Speech]]
'''Intolerance''' (opposite of [[tolerance]]) is a refusal to allow other people to express their opinions or to practice their religion.

In [[totalitarian]] countries, the government forcibly suppresses all views which oppose government policy or ideology.
[[Communist]] countries deny the [[freedom of religion]] as well.
Other forms of [[dictatorship]]s permit religious freedom, but are intolerant of any criticism of the government.

Intolerance is also a root of some "[[hate speech]]" rules and laws. Various special interest groups have gotten companies, schools and governments to define any criticism of their group activities as "motivated by hate". Corretta Scott King views homosexual activity the same as an opinion or the practice of religion as the following quote illustrates:

*"[[Homophobia]] is like [[racism]] and [[anti-Semitism]] and other forms of [[bigotry]] in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." <ref> [http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=317 Coretta Scott King, 1998] </ref>

The error in this argument is obvious. Telling someone about a warning in the Bible is doing them a favor, not expressing hatred toward them. When a teacher instructs a pupil not to steal from others, not to assault them or tease them, these instructions are for the child's benefit. Similarily, informing homosexuals of the supposed sin they are committing is one sides freedom of speech - a homosexual reacting by insulting ones religious beliefs is his/her side's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech works both ways.

== External links ==

*[http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousintolerance/Religious_Intolerance_Bigotry_Violence_Discrimination_Prejudice.htm Religious Intolerance & Bigotry: Violence, Discrimination, Prejudice]

==Notes==

<references/>

[[category:homosexuality]]
[[category:politics]]

Communism

2007-09-25T14:14:49Z

Graham: Differentiate between Communism (theory) and Communism (practise)

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation .]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" without personal property, however, no Communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. In less than the past 100 years, Communist governments have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
== Communism and Militant Atheism ==
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The atheism in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Theory and horror==
[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|right|200px|The Hammer and Sickle is an offensive symbol of oppression in much of the world in the same way the [[Swastika]] is. It is the international symbol of communism.]]
It is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. Yet party members (there is only one Party) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the perennial shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various Communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," i.e. legalized theft.

Marx also coined the disparaging atheistic dictum "religion is the opium of the masses", expressing the fundamental Marxist view that the proletariat have been brainwashed by religion, and thus a ''Nomenklatura'' of ''[[enlightened]]'' party members with this [[esoteric]] knowledge and foresight are justified in enslaving the masses, for their own benefit.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include [[Stalin]], [[Engels]], [[Lenin]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Pol Pot]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

==See also==
*[[Nazism]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Cults]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Communism

2007-09-25T14:14:13Z

Graham:

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation .]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" without personal property, however, no Communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. In less than the past 100 years, Communist governments has claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
== Communism and Militant Atheism ==
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The atheism in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Theory and horror==
[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|right|200px|The Hammer and Sickle is an offensive symbol of oppression in much of the world in the same way the [[Swastika]] is. It is the international symbol of communism.]]
It is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. Yet party members (there is only one Party) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the perennial shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various Communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," i.e. legalized theft.

Marx also coined the disparaging atheistic dictum "religion is the opium of the masses", expressing the fundamental Marxist view that the proletariat have been brainwashed by religion, and thus a ''Nomenklatura'' of ''[[enlightened]]'' party members with this [[esoteric]] knowledge and foresight are justified in enslaving the masses, for their own benefit.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include [[Stalin]], [[Engels]], [[Lenin]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Pol Pot]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

==See also==
*[[Nazism]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Cults]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:World History Lecture Fourteen

2007-09-25T11:19:26Z

Graham:

It is not 'English Protestants' who rule Northern Ireland, but Northern Irish Protestants who identify themselves as British - and they rule, now, in coalition with Irish nationalists. Some of the articles here on Ireland and Northern Ireland will give you more insight into the question. And your reluctance to use the term terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland is questionable. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 08:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Pachyderm's comments are all correct. In addition the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street happened on 7 February 1991 - several months after Mrs Thatcher left office[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/69117.stm]
. John Major (and the rest of the cabinet) were the targets. I think you may be confusing this attack with another one seven years prior to this where the IRA left a bomb in a Brighton hotel where Mrs Thatcher was staying during the Conservative Party conference.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/68779.stm] [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 08:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no bit of Ireland that is more Northerly than the most Northern parts of England, thus Ireland is not 'slightly to the North-West of England'.
The IRA attack on 10 Downing Street was made from an abandoned van not with 'hand-held weapons'. [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

It is purposeless getting into an edit war, but the section on Northern Ireland stinks. It presents a completely one-sided and inaccurate view of the situation to the extent of serving as a justification for terrorism. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Having lived in Northern ireland and hailing from a Catholic background, the section is pretty much what I was taught at school. This sort of inherent bias is bad to teach children - tell them the two sides of the story. Tell them about Gordon Wilson, the Methodist who lost his daughter tragically in an IRA bomb and who immediately forgave those who caused; pleaded for reconciliation and toured the world in a pledge for peace. Both sides faced their tragedies, its only right that both sides get a fair shout. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 07:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

PS- 'But on 1919, the Irish Republic was declared through the efforts of its leader' THe Irish Republic was only declared, it did not become official until 1948. Up until then there was the Irish Free State (1921-1937) and Eire (1937-1948), which represented two constitutional changes on the road to independence. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 07:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Fourteen

2007-09-25T11:13:07Z

Graham:

User talk:Geek

2007-09-24T21:58:01Z

Graham:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)}}

Are you really a Commie, or just antagonising? I've been accused of been a pinko before! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Godless liberal

2007-09-24T21:54:15Z

Graham: No need for the little dramatics at the end, if you really feel there is a need for it undo my edit.

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing [[liberal]]s who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life.

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner, trying to marginalize the true nature of the term.
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Liberal myths

2007-09-24T21:53:12Z

Graham: /* Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! */

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I normally try to stay away from discussion on these sorts of pages, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "motivation" part of the first few entries. Personally I'd rather have the motivation removed from this entry and discussed on the relevant article page, but a comprimise would be to give each bullet point it's own section with a full discussion. Thoughts? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==I'm ripping this apart one by one==

'The claim of a population explosion (motivation: promote abortion)'

The population went from 3 billion from around the time of the second Vatican Council to over 6 billion now. Is that not an explosion in your eyes?

'The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous Christians look dumb)'

Not smarter, more educated. The whole sum of knowledge a human being will never know is beyond our comprehension, but at least the amount of knowledge we do not know as a whole is decreasing. In other words, we have so much more knowledge in our hands today than we used to have. It was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of education. Without universal education and the abilitity to read and write, the people didn't have the opportunities to be what they are today. Its not a Liberal Myth, its a simple fact. People were less educated in the past than they are now.

'The claim that the Apostles were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)'

As far as I am aware most of them were blue collar guys with no need for a formal education. Actually, the overwhelming majority of people back then could not read or write. So yes, it is most likely they were illiterate.

'The claim of extraterrestrial life (motivation: deny that man was created in God's image)'

You are once again politicising science, which is just stupid. The claim of extraterrestrial life is a bold one; we have no evidence other than a mathematically calculated probability that there isn't.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.'

Bush's tax cuts did decrease revenues. Show me a graph or something. Your deficit is exploding man... Get a grip.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.'

I think its more to do with Bush not being able to help the economy.

'Man-made Global Warming.[1]'

There are three steps to conservatism. 1) Denying the science behind passive smoking. 2) Denying the science behind Climate Change. 3) Promoting Creationism in '''Science classes'''. I'll never be able to persuade you about the lunacy of that point above. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 07:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Your definition of conservatism is rather poor, indeed. When one is arguing that there is too much rhetoric in another's argument, one should be careful to keep the rhetoric out of one's own argument, no? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 09:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly joking about that. Its a caricature of the extreme right. Denying Climate Change is just one step on the ladder of that infamous caricature... [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! ==

Here you go, sport!

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit."''

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
[[Image:Chart1 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]

:From an conservative economic standpoint, Bush still deserves mediocre or poor grades. It's true that the budget is Congress' department, but has Bush done anything to curb spending and cut down on pork? Did he ever use his veto as Reagan did? while we can start to shift some of the blame to the Democrats now, we can't escape the fact that for six years republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, and it during that time that these deficits emerged. The sad fact is that politicians love to spend other peoples money. even those who rail against it tend to change their tune when its their turn. Clinton was lucky that he had surpluses during his tenure. Bush doesn't have the tech bubble, and Clinton didn't have a war on terror, even though after the World Trade center and embassy bombings he really should have. Bush is in a more difficult situtation, but the inabaility of ALL partys to curb spending is shameful. as for whether or not the bush tax cuts substantially desreased revenue, I guess it depends on what one considers substantial. is 58 billion substantial? I guess in this context it isnt so much, but considering 58 billion an unsubstantial amount of money is one reason why there is so little fiscal responsibility today. as for the point below, yes the tax cuts did help the economy, as they generally do. The deficits are still troubling, though. does no one remember those hopeful days in 1994 when Republicans talked of not just a balanced budget, but a balanced budget amendment? Why does no one even mention the term balanced budget or fiscal responsibility any more? [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]
::Libertarians do ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy..."''

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
[[Image:Table 3 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
* GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
* Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
* The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, '''critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted.''' They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Although I would readily agree that sometimes tax cuts can be great for an economy - a budget deficit is most certainly not. Bush's irresponsible 'spending without raising' policies have led to the current deficit, something which is helping fuel the economies of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Japan etc. who are buying your government bonds to help make ends meet! Its a nasty little circle. Your charts were lovely though :-) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*When you are refuted, have the good grace to accept defeat. Don't respond with more ''talking points'' from moveon or daily kos. Most responsible economists would never say all budget deficits are bad. And again, read the Constitution! '''Presidents cannot appropriate money!''' That was, 75% of the time since FDR, a liberal, Democrat-controlled Congress. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

First of all I don't read Move on or Daily Kos. I stick to reading the Irish Times, if anything (The Centre-Right paper in my country) or the Economist when I want a more Liberal perspective on things.

Presidents do not appropriate money - but they can veto. Add to this the fact there was a Republican Congress, the President could have balanced the Budget. The fact that he did not is a testament to his lack of fiscal responsibility. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P-S Going all Keynesian (deficit spending) on me TK!?? I might have expected that from a crusty old Liberal like myself but you... :-O [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Godless liberal

2007-09-24T21:51:31Z

Graham:

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing [[liberal]]s who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life, typical of Liberal [[Deceit]]{fact}.

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner, trying to marginalize the true nature of the term.
[[category:politics]]

Godless liberal

2007-09-24T21:51:07Z

Graham: Godless Liberal is a slang term... It is not deceitful.

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing [[liberal]]s who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life, typical of Liberal [[Deceit]].

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner, trying to marginalize the true nature of the term.
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Liberal myths

2007-09-24T21:43:05Z

Graham: /* Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! */

Talk:Liberal myths

2007-09-24T21:41:10Z

Graham: /* Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! */

Cicero

2007-09-24T17:30:55Z

Graham:

'''Cicero''' (106-43 BC) was a [[Roman Empire|Roman]] orator, statesman, lawyer and philosopher. In the time after the assassination of [[Julius Caesar]], Cicero became one of the most powerful politicians in Rome, and a rival to [[Marc Antony]]. Cicero's attempts to rid himself of Antony failed, leading to his death.

Cicero is considered to be one of the greatest orators and speech writers that Rome produced, and a father to modern legalists and barristers.

Cicero was also responsible for unveiling a plot determined to overthrow the Republic, masterminded by [[Crassus]] among others.

<blockquote>"Where is there dignity unless there is honesty?" - Cicero</blockquote>

[[category:philosophers]]
[[Category:Romans]]

Broccolini

2007-09-24T16:57:32Z

Graham: Uncyclopedic

Broccolini is a hybrid vegetable, composed of a cross between broccoli and Chinese kale.It is often mistaken for young broccoli. It typically has a sweeter flavor than broccoli. It is an excellent source of Vitamin C, Vitamin A, calcium, folate, and iron.

The first brocolini seeds were developed by the Sakata Seed Company of Yokohama, Japan.

User talk:DanH

2007-09-24T16:19:14Z

Graham: /* Articles related to me */

[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|left|'''DanH''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilence against fascists, liberals, vandals & trolls.]]

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== reminder ==

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

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

== Uh-oh... ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Congratulations Div. Chess Champ! ==

Go Dan! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Ranger Bill==
Sorry, I didn't do that!! My little sister (didn't ask me or anything) just put it up using my user name. Sorry that it happened.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dan, evolution article ==

Dear Dan,

My sister stated to me that the [[theory of evolution]] article was a very good article but she said, "What about the man-ape fossils?". So I added the [[paleoanthropology]] section which a leading creationist organization is going to publish at their website. I also noticed that [[Wikipedia]] did the social effects of the theory of evolution in their [[evolution]] article so I added that very briefly. I also noticed that a HUGE issue was left out and that was biological information, biological code, and genetic programs so I added a brief section.

As far as today, Andy added some material that I thought needed better footnoting and wording so that is what I was doing today.

I do think the end result was worth it. Out of 112 million articles on Google for the Theory of evolution ours is ranked #34.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Chess ==

Congratulations on winning. Not bad for a Jayhawk. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes...congratulations! I was always horrible at chess...I just move a piece and see what happens...the word strategy does not exist in my dictionary :) [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 12:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Congratulations. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:35, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Belated congrats! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Would you please categorize... ==

the article on [[pornography]]? If I read the history correctly you are the protecting sysop so I figured you'd like first crack at it. May I suggest something simple like "media" for now? I have plans to re-organize many category structures but at the moment that's likely to be your best fit. Of course, you should do as you see fit. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm just doing them alphabetically, honest!

:Hello again,

:Would you also please categorize [[Main Page/new style]]? Thank you, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:14, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Good Catch ==

...On the user name "Bush is retarded" spelt backwards. Of course I guess I should expect that from a chess champion. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hitler's vegetarianism==
Hi. What exactly is your source that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian? I've read numerous places that he was, including, I believe, the memoirs of his friend Albert Speer. Is the argument that he wasn't a ''strict'' vegetarian? Because there are numerous definitions of vegetarianism, and some allow for limited meat ingestion. If I recall, his reasons were health and not animal ights, but I don't think that matters. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

There's at the very least, enough controversy about whether he was [http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/] that we shouldn't dogmatically say one way or the other. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler's personal chef says his favourite dish was pigeon [http://veg.ca/content/view/171/113/]; it seems from various other sources that while he ''preferred'' a vegetarian diet, he deviated enough from it to not be classed as a vegetarian. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Sources are numerous. One source of good criticism cites how Hitler was not sympathetic to German soldiers freezing in Russia who asked for meat. Hitler went into a long spiel about how the Roman legions survived on grains, etc., and probably regarded meat eaters as subversive to the Nazi effort. Ultimately, many meat eaters probably betrayed the Nazi cause because of this--Hitler just didn't care if meat eaters got fed or not, and expected everybody to be like him and make the same sacrifices during the privations of a prolonged war, which of course to a vegetarian of many years, are not sacrifices at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The sources for his meat eating and love of ham and bavarian sausages are numerous also [http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm]; many commentators also point out that Hitler never claimed to be a vegetarian, outlawed vegetarian organizations and prevented all measures aimed at easing Germany’s food shortages that involved a reduction in meat consumption. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I want to put a few more pictures in the [[evolution]] article. Do you know how to do that? I want to put a picture of [[Ernst Haeckel]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Evolutionary_theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud.2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation.E2.80.8E I also want to put a picture of [[Stephen Gould]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Punctuated_Equilibrium Please don't use the picture of Stephen Gould used at [[Wikipedia]]. Can you help? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Thanks ==

Thank you for welcoming me, DanH. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 20:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for unblocking me, it is greatly appreciated -Mr.Random

== Grunge ==
I agree. A lot of post-grunge bands really ruined grunge. Everclear,Third Eye Blind,Matchbox 20, and even Daughtry (he was classified post-grunge too lol) really turned grunge to pop - rock.

(whoops forgot to sign)

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Favorite Original Grunge Band: Alice In Chains

Favorite Post-Grunge: Three Days Grace or Breaking Benjamin

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:06, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block! Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wow, a second great block in the same night!!! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== thanks ==

The user who put those questionable comments was a sock of vandal redhungary, who I think you dealt with earlier. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's ark ==

Heya -- I'm interested in making some changes to Noah's ark -- proposed them on the talk page -- any chance you could try unlocking it for a while and see if revert wars and/or vandalism become a problem? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please protect my signature templates ==

The templates in question are:
*[[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]
*[[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]]
and
*[[User:PheasantHunter/sig]]

I am the only person who has any business editing them (aside from Andy). Other users who edit them are probably vandalizing them. Niandra protected them, but then TK unprotected them (he was probably confused since this is a technical issue.) Could you either take it up with other sysops or just go ahead and protect the above templates? Thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal blocking ==
:Good job blocking the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DanH&page= vandals]. [[User:JohnMorrisonBirch|JohnMorrisonBirch]] 21:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Crop Circles ==

Dear Dan

I wander why you removed the information about Stonehenge. It is now in the middle of an explanation as you can see in the talk page of that article. According to the theory (?) it is a geometrical pattern and consequently a "crop circle" (near a Myth?). Neither Jazzman831 nor you asked me about it before deleting. That is not the right way to collaborate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*Joaquin my friend, I beleive I asked you to post in the sysop area about this, no? Please do so. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion Request ==

Hi, you're an admin here, right? Could you delete [[Charlesincharge]]?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 22:31, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert on Guillotine ==

Why is it liberal bias to cite a fact? Capital punishment is indeed contrary to the French constitution following a vote of the French Parliament, in April 2007. I do not understand why you reverted this?[[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:15, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

It probably wasn't, but the term First World seems to imply that. Maybe as in most of Europe, or in much of the world would be a way to put it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:OK. By the way, thank you for having moved [[Maximilien de Robespierre]]. [[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:17, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear DanH,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:33, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. ''I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". '' Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:58, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''
:::TK, that is untrue as my message on the indicated pages clearly indicates the template is to be placed on a article or section of an article that are COMPLETELY uncited. It also gives the template for merely indicating a sentence that is uncited. Lastly, my''' cited''' articles are clearly bringing internet traffic and the uncited articles are not only breaking the conservapedia commandment about citing your sources but they are creating Conservapedia articles filled with unverifiable or hard to verify information. Plus uncited articles are not making a significant impact in regards to bringing in search engine traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== stonehenge ==

DanH, please do not revert me again. My new post states: broke conservapedia commandments. uncited material. please do not allow the conservapedia commandment breakers to reign freely. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sc/nthorpe ==
Why did you delete this? It is a significant town in the English East Midlands and a major centre of steel production. Just because some people have dirty minds, and CP has an absurdly oversensitive spam filter, is no reason for it not to be listed. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert ==

Sorry Dan, but I had to revert you. The name of the city is Чорнобиль or ''chornobyl'', but in the russian language it is Чернобыль or ''chernobyl''. The city is both Ukrainian and in Ukraine. I have moved the article so now the link works. Its alot like Kyiv the correct way and Kiev the wrong russian way. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I shall be informing Putin of your treason. Run! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:21, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Mitt Romney]] ==

Thanks for removing the polygamy smear. I was considering removing it, but as a Mormon myself I always get nervous that I'd be accused of trying to cover up the history of my church or something silly like that. I was just about to post on the talk page asking for the opinion of others when I saw your edit; far more efficient. :-) [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
== Flying machine revert ==

Why did you do it? My bit was accurate and on point.[[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 20:57, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Professional wrestling]] ==

Could you delete [[Professional wrestling]]? It was created by the [[User:Dragonman|vandal]] you just blocked. Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:13, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==Transcluded text==

Hi, Mountain Dew! I created [[Template:Famine of 1933]] as [[transcluded text]]. You or anyone can edit it easily, because there is a special [[edit link]] in all three articles which invoke the template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah! That's really cool, and easy to work in. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:00, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

== TO: DanH from Conservative ==

Dear Dan,

Please read the email I just sent you.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== cabsmith ==

Who is cabsmith? I don't even see a history of any contributions of that user. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 18:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Somebody who shared your IP with you when you were in Atlanta a week ago, or whatever it may be. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:33, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:I am lost. But am I not allowed to participate here? [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 18:35, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Hurricane ==

Yes, Thank you! I have been working here all the time but very little, except when I went for holidays at the end of July.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:26, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

== Beetle ==

Umm, okay, why did you revert my edit? Did I do something wrong?

*On every edit screen you see this message:

<blockquote>
"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here."
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Laura Ingraham ==

Sorry, I did not see your edit. But...

As I understand, "See also" is a way to promote what we have in CP that is more or less related to the article or that could be interesting to the reader. It is NOT an extension of the subject.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:11, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Tancredo Image==
Here is a public domain picture of him that I found (Image:Tom_Tencredo.jpg), but I can't upload it to the page since its locked. The picture still has to be protected also. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 18:42, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==Unresponsive==
I emailed you a while ago (like 2 weeks probably) concerning a ban. You either didn't get it because you didn't check your email or you just choose to ignore it (the latter being the more likely). So i'm sorry but should you really be a sysop when you act this rediculous? Anyways, email me back explaining your actions and please dont try to ban me saying that I harrased you or something stupid like that...

--[[User:Maverick|Maverick]] 13:06, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

He might not, but I will. Read the instructions on the block notice. Bye.
* BlakJack (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 18:13, 11 September 2007) (Earliest: 18:13, 11 September 2007) [1]
* Maverick (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 18:07, 11 September 2007) (Earliest: 18:06, 11 September 2007) [2]
204.169.xx.xxx
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:21, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

hey Dan, why did you take out my [[antichrist]] edit. Those of us who believe that the Lord is returning are seeing the signs. Why can't we put out the view that the antichrist is here?

We are not in the business of gossip here, and determining who the Antichrist is. Only God knows. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:09, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dan, perhaps we need an article called [[Views of the Antichrist]], expressing major denominational perspectives. Some Christian denominations believe a person such as this must appear, as a pre-condition before the second coming. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:25, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

*It is good news to see Ed will be quadrupling his on line time here! Of course we would need his help in patrolling that article, and all the flames it would engender...lol. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:56, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::Four times 0.01 is only 0.04 ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:24, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

*Well, as your official spokesperson, I can chip in an additional 0.04, making an almost thousand-sold increase in your presence! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:33, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Alan Keyes ==

You are welcome! My pleasure. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:12, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== I sent you a important email ==

I sent you a important email. If you could get back to me as soon as possible I would appreciate it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== small request ==

Dan, thanks for getting back to me. I cannot understand why you didn't get my email. I would hate to type out another one only to have you not get that one either. Could you send me a email via the conservapedia system? It only has to say, "Hi, Conservative. This is DanH."
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:11, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
:::This way here I would have your email address. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative links ==

Andy wants us to make explanation for the links set in this article. Could you help? Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest==
How about joining team one (to be named) in the contest?--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 18:54, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

==Articles related to me==
Hi these articles are articles I created or largely expanded in Wikipidea.--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

most the internal links will be filled, I am looking forward to expand this article. I understand your concerns about Wiki/robot work. I wil make sure I improve the articles, use proper references and every internal link in any of my articles will lead to a new article that I will create, regards.--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:37, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

==Grammar==

Hi, thanks for fixing up my grammar like that. I wrote that in kind of a hurry so next time I do something like that I'll fix it up better. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Gaullism

2007-09-24T16:09:29Z

Graham:

'''Gaullism''' is the political philosophy associated with [[Charles de Gaulle]], the former French President. It emphasizes protecting the ''grandeur'' of [[France]]. Traditionally, this has often meant opposing the interests of the [[United Kingdom]] and [[United States]]. On the French political spectrum, it is a center-right political philosophy. Former French president [[Jacques Chirac]] was an avowed Gaullist.

De Gaulle was very pro-European. He viewed efforts to further integrate the nations of Europe into one workable block as the creation of a 'third force' in geopolitical politics, a sort of in between power between the Soviet Union and the United States. He opposed Britains special relationship with the United States and blocked her initial application to enter the European Economic Community, saying that she was too close to America on Foreign Policy issues. This issue aside, Charles de Gaulle was most definately on the American side of the Cold War, and also thanked the Americans several times for their role in liberating France during the Second World War. Like Chirac, he regard New York to be one of the finest cities in the world.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:France]]

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-09-24T14:30:19Z

Graham: /* Ron Paul */

{{Useful links|float=right}}

== Warning ==

Sorry, general editing is turning off soon. See you tomorrow morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking powers ==

I just gave you blocking powers. You can block vandals now. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you very much! I will do my best to stop vandals before they can cause too much harm to Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:48, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==New Entries Redux==

Oops. Okay, I'll "jazz up" the ones I've created before I move onto others. --[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 13:50, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:Heh heh thanks :) Again, I wasn't trying to criticize you or anything, just wanted to let you know. As you can see from my userpage, MoS compliancy is one of my current projects, but you know the whole "teach a man to fish" adage... [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 13:54, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::No, no--I didn't take it as criticism at all. Indeed, I appreciate the heads up. The whole wiki thing is still new to me.--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:::As for many, I suspect. You seem to be catching on quickly though! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 14:13, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==
I hate people who take advantage of good faith. --[[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 20:37, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:Heh I just thanked you on your talk page! And I agree with you on that point! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:38, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::saw that. maybe you can point me in the direction I might do the most good. I saw some of the links at the top of the recent changes page. Is that the best way to help out? [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 20:43, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Until you get your bearings, a great way to get started is to hit the "random page" button until you see something that needs fixing. Often times the title won't be bolded, or there might be a spelling mistake or something. Over time you start to get a better handle on the type of articles we have, and how they are generally written. Once you feel comfortable enough, you can go into the [[special:wantedpages|wanted pages]] and start creating new articles that interest you, or you can make revisions to articles, whatever floats your boat. Some people like going through those lists, others have certain areas of interest; I'm currently checking every single chemistry article over for correctness! You'll find your niche rather quickly, I think.
:::Check out those links I put on your talk page, they are very helpful for new editors; and you can always ask if you have any questions! Welcome, and enjoy editing Conservapedia! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:54, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Editing ==

HelpJazz, general editing needs to pick up again tomorrow morning. Sorry for the interruption, but see you tomorrow morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, guess I'll get some sleep then :) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest==
Hey HelpJazz. Would you be interested in joining team one (to be named) in the contest? --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm honored and flattered. I'd love to join your team. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 22:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! You are in!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

==Ron Paul==

I notice your supporting Ron Paul in this election? I was thinking of making small donations to him and Obama (A Ron Paul/Obama election would be some craic) It would put me in the position of watching the election from Ireland, content if either one wins. Back to the point of my question though, is it possible for non-nationals to donate to someones election campaign? I'm Irish, though have an American parent. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Do you support Paul and Obama, or just think it would be interesting to watch the two of them go against each other? They aren't exactly like-minded candidates on most issues, so it seems strange to me that you would support them both.

:That was a verty interesting question. I didn't know the answer so I looked on Ron Paul's donation page and found that when you donate you have to certify the following:
::"I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident. If a foreign national, I have permanent resident status and hold a green card."
:So you probably can't donate... legally. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah well...

First of all, there are certain things I like about both candidates:

Ron Paul- Were he to get elected, he might bring the Party to the Libertarian/Constitutional Wing. After a scurrilous few years of Bush's scant regard for constitutional rights and responsibilities as President to uphold those rights, he'd be a breath of fresh air.

Economically we differ, but I don't care so much about what he'll do to your welfare systems because I don't live there. Socially, he might just end the lunatical 'war on drugs' once and for all.

Obama- Electing Obama would create an icon for the African American community to look up to. There seems to be a shortage of role models there - Were I a Black American father, I'd teach my kids to look up to him. Furthermore, he is on the Evangelical side, so him being elected might just fragmentise the Religious Right, which holds far too much power in America.

Not to mention two articulate, honourable men running for the office of President. That would be a sight to see. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)