Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Main Page/Archive index/131

2014-02-20T22:04:03Z

Iduan: new archive

== Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. What are your thoughts on the debate? ==

''See also [[Essay:Lessons from Ham-Nye Debate]]''.

Any thoughts on the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye creation vs. evolution debate? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:55, 4 February 2014 (EST)

:Ken Ham won the debate. All Bill Nye could say in response to the biggest questions was something like, "this is a great mystery." Many of Bill Nye's arguments were obviously fallacious, such as failing to admit the circular reasoning in the use of [[radiometric dating]] to believe in an [[Old Earth]].

:Ken Ham was clear and informative, and even Bill Nye admitted he learned something from Ken Ham's presentation. If Ken Ham had used counterexamples and also [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]], then he could have won by an even wider margin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 5 February 2014 (EST)
::I think the ''USA Today'' newspaper summed up the debate well: "Ham and Nye stuck to their lines in prepared speeches that made this anything but a debate."[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/creation-museum-debate-nye-ham/5215173/]

::Also, many debates have much more audience interaction with the debaters.

::Maybe the next big creation vs. evolution debate will have more interaction between the debaters and/or be a series of debates or a team debate approach. Also, more audience interaction with the debaters would be helpful. Since the Scopes Monkey Trial was about 90 years ago, there may not be another big creation vs. evolution debate in our lifetimes. But maybe this will open the door to other such events. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 5 February 2014 (EST)

:::I doubt there will be any future decisive or significant creation vs. evolution battles. It will be a day to day and year by year and decade by decade ideological/demography/spiritual war (secular minded people have less children).

:::Irenaeus and the early church didn't lick Gnositicism in a big battle. Only God can beat the opposition in big battles (Red Sea and the Egyptians, etc. ). :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 5 February 2014 (EST)

The questions selected from the audience were superb, though it would have been better if audience members asked the questions themselves, rather than the moderator reading them. More of a direct dialog between the participants in the debate would have been an improvement also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 5 February 2014 (EST)
::I agree; the questions were good. And it would have been nicer if the audience members had been allowed to ask the questions themselves, but it's understandable that debate organizers are nervous about allowing that. And more time on rapid-fire back-and-forth would have been good, rather than one person making a long statement while the other goes back to his desk to take notes. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:06, 6 February 2014 (EST)

===IDuan weighs in, various people respond===
:I think - and based on the reaction I'm seeing on twitter and news outlets - the people who thought Bill Nye would win thought Bill Nye would dominate; the people who thought Ken Ham would win thought he dominated. For me, Bill Nye won - I don't think this notion of saying "we don't know the answer to that" is a bad thing. We don't know everything about the universe. Furthermore, the idea of needing 11 new species a day (when was the last time you went to a restaurant and a waiter said - "we have this special - a fish - just appeared today there's not even a name for it yet"?) in addition to the logical sorting of fossils (not mixing mammals with fish - which would have happened had there been a great flood) were the convincing points to me. Bill Nye also said how he could be proven wrong - he laid out the challenge - ken ham just said "god" - which for me is circular reasoning. The bible is true so god must be real and this is how things happened and I know this is true because the god of the bible says so.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:19, 5 February 2014 (EST)
:Last point - from now on when people want to mention how racist Darwin was - let's not forget that the civil rights movement was not Christians vs atheists. It was Christians vs atheists - and both sides used the bible - southern bible thumpers don't actually have the best track record.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:25, 5 February 2014 (EST)
Also Andy you're take on bill Nye in the Super Bowl is hilarious. Yes he referenced something only 111 million people watched WHAT AN IDIOT. Hey how many people have ever seen conservapedia? WE SHOULD POST THAT ON OUR MAIN PAGE--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:35, 5 February 2014 (EST)
:Iduan, consider this:

:"Time and time again, Comfort made his interviewees squirm when he asked them a simple question: “Can you think of any observable evidence that Darwinian evolution is true – a change of kind?” Ray Comfort made it clear to his interviewees that he was not looking for evidence of a change from one species into another, as there are 14 different definitions of species in the literature. (He’s not far wrong on that one: philosopher of science John S. Wilkins counted seven distinct definitions of “species” in a 2010 [http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/10/how-many-species-concepts-are-there/ article] entitled, [http://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/oct/20/3 How many species concepts are there?] (The Guardian, 20 October 2010), and 26 or 27 variations on these definitions!)"[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-vs-god-a-review/]

:Slight variations of kinds of animals do not form impressive evidence for macroevolution and there is good evidence for rapid speciation: http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise and http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists I think Ken Ham could have handled this issue better.

:Plus, Ham should have taken Nye to task [[Evolution and the fossil record|on the fossil record]]. In addition, he could have challenged him on the [http://creation.com/origin-of-life origin of life] and Nye's [[atheism]]. He could have asked Nye [[Shockofgod]]'s question, "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?"

:I think Ken Ham's two other mistakes was overemphasizing the operational science matter and not challenging Nye for being "tone deaf" (He should have said, "I have showed you competent scientists who are creationists and the USA has more creationists per capita than any developed country and we are the most scientifically productive". Why do you stubbornly cling to the idea that people have to embrace evolution to be good scientists when the empirical evidence shows this is false? He could have brought up Switzerland's creationism too and there high standard of living compared to some other European countries). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:42, 5 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, I did a little more research and Nye has a misunderstanding on the types of animals that would be in the ark and this would affect his species calculations as far as the number of species at the time of the end of the worldwide flood and the number of species today and how fast the speciation would have to be:

"Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. The animals which went on the ark only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible."[http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate] See: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 5 February 2014 (EST)

===SamHB weighs in, various people respond===
:I see that there has been some robust discussion over last night's debate. Let me add a few of my impressions, in no particular order, and by no means a complete analysis. I watched much, but not all of it.
:*The thing I was most curious about, of course, is why Bill Nye wanted to do something that virtually all "mainstream" scientists believed was wrong and would simply lend legitimacy to a fringe theory. Well, he said a number of things that made it clear: He is concerned about American primacy in science and technology, and will do anything to keep it from slipping away. He made this point several times during the debate. He is simply a patriotic American who wants the United States to be successful. He had also mentioned, in a number of pre-debate statements, that he is "afraid". Not afraid of losing the debate, but afraid of what creationism is doing to American preeminence in science and technology. A large fraction of our students at prestigious colleges come from foreign countries because of the shortage of good doestic applicants. Now there are many things wrong with our educational system that cause this to be the case, but one of them is that potential students in science and engineering, if they are not taught evolution and old-universe cosmology, are usually squandered. Ken Ham was right in pointing out the exceptions to this--the person who sequenced the human genome and the one who invented MRI scanners, but they are the rare exceptions. Bill Nye should have pointed this out more forcefully.
:*I've never seen Bill Nye's "Science Guy" shows, but from what I understand, he is considered to be an extremely good science popularizer. But I hardly saw that talent at all. This debate must have been ''way'' outside of his comfort zone as a science presenter. I got to see a small glimpse of his presentation technique in his description of the second law of thermodynamics (see below), and I was surprised at how badly he must "dumb things down" for his usual audience. His attempts a humor and "folksiness" fell completely flat. Especially whatever that quip was about the superbowl.
:*It was good that Bill Nye pointed out that the vast majority of Christians (disclaimer: this includes me) and other theists, in the scientific community, do not accept the YEC "just so story". He should have pushed that theme more often and more pointedly. He should have hit back at Ken Ham's assertions that any Christian must accept his interpretation of what Christianity means.
:*I was favorably impressed with Ken Ham's respectability and professionalism. He set forth a well-thought-out case for YEC. Looking at Conservapedia and things like the Blogspot site must have gotten me accustomed to really amateurish arguments—flying kitties, ponies, clowns, the "walrus slide", sweet svelte long-haired creationist ladies, etc.
:*Bill Nye should not have allowed Ken Ham to get away with asserting that mainstream scientists have "hijacked" the meaning of science with this dichotomy of "observational" vs. "historical". Science embraces both. Scientists make observations (say, that F=ma), formulate that as a rule, observe that that rule is obeyed, observe that that rule predicts future phenomena and turns out to be true, and infers that that rule must have applied to past phenomena. One needs to be very careful about drawing incorrect conclusions, of course. Science requires, above all, common sense and careful thinking. But "observational" and "historical" science are really two sides of the same coin. As an example, we know roughly how houses come into existence—we see them being built. Pour concrete foundation, put joists (made from wood cut from trees), studs, rafters, roof, sheathing into place, etc. etc. If we see a house that we didn't see being built, can we infer that it came into being by this process? Scientists have to be very careful about the inferences they make (that's what peer review is for), but, basically, the anser is "yes". How about houses that were in existence before one was born? Once again, being aware of the need for careful thinking and common sense, "yes". Is this "historical" or observational? It's really the same thing. Similarly, we observe galaxies moving apart, and, using what we know about mechanics, deduce where they must have been at certain times in the past. One needs to think carefully before coming to conclusions about these sorts of things, but claiming that this couldn't be extrapolated more than 6000 years back takes a ''lot'' of careful thinking. Saying that it couldn't have happened because of a book written by people who didn't have telescopes and didn't know how to measure spectroscopic redshift is quite a stretch.
:*Bill Nye could have done a much better job of explaining the second law of thermodynamics, particularly because it is so often misused by creationists. This was really disappointing. His explanation seemed to be some kind of muddled stock explanation from his TV shows, involving the efficiency of automobile engines, and the need to heat the fuel very hot to make the engine efficient. While this is true, it is largely a tangent to the case at hand. A much better explanation could have been something like "The second law of thermodynamics is an important physical law that ultimately comes from the commonplace and irrefutable observation that heat only travels from a warmer body to a cooler one, never the other way. When a warm object is placed in contact with a cool object, heat flows from the warm object, lowering its temperature, to the cooler one, raising its temperature, until the two reach the same temperature. The second law of thermodynamics is the mathematical and physical explanation for this, along with some physical consequences relating to the maximum possible efficiency of heat engines, including automobile engines, and relating this to a concept called 'entropy'. The second law says that, in a system that is completely isolated from the rest of the universe, the entropy can only increase. This is sometimes taken as meaning that "disorder" increases. This idea is sometimes misused by creationists to claim that the Earth is "running down" in some sense, so that evolution can't create ever more complex organisms. But the Earth is not an isolated system; the Sun pours huge amounts of energy onto it every day, so the second law does not apply".
:*Bill Nye should have been more forceful about demanding that creationism ''make predictions'', the way mainstream science does, and in making clear just what is meant by a prediction. After all, it's easy to claim that you made a prediction, and that it was correct, after you know how things turned out. The trick is predicting '''the future'''. Bill Nye pointed out that mainstream science has made predictions, ''pointing out where the prediction was made, before the fact'', and then showing that the predictions came true. I believe the predictions he cited were the missing elements in the periodic table, and the discovery of some transitional fossils, though I may misremember. He challenged Kan Ham to show places where creation "science" made predictions of that sort, but he didn't clarify the exact standards to which such predictions need to be held, and to which many predictions of mainstream science have been held.
:*There was a very interesting question at the end, leading to Ken Ham saying that there are parts of the Bible that he takes as literally and exactly true, such as Genesis, and parts that are to be taken "naturally", such as the Psalms. Bill Nye should have pounced on that.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:06, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, you wrote: "The thing I was most curious about, of course, is why Bill Nye wanted to do something that virtually all "mainstream" scientists believed was wrong and would simply lend legitimacy to a fringe theory." Setting said the issue of whether or not the creation view is supposedly a fringe view, why don't you ask Nye how much money he got for doing the debate and what percentage of revenue he gets on the DVD sales and how much publicity he got. Mystery solved? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:35, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::::Why don't '''you''' ask him that question? I was only interested in the effect that the debate would have on public discourse, and whether those who thought the effect would be negative were correct, not in what effect it would have on his personal wealth. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:::(reply to SamHB) The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in its full meaning, establishes that disorder always increase over time (in the absence of intelligent intervention). It predicts that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. It is a fancy way of saying "Murphy's Law." The Second Law is a precursor to the basic insight of [[quantum mechanics]].

:::Pouring in heat, as Bill Nye argued, does not reduce the disorder. In fact, pouring in heat may increase the disorder.

:::The theory of evolution insists that order increases over time without intelligent intervention. That is as illogical as saying that 2+2=5. It is not merely that no such increase in order has ever been observed, but also that such an increase in order would be a logical absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 6 February 2014 (EST)

::::No!!!!! Andy, you have been saying the same wrong things about the Second Law (and about Relativity, but that's another matter) again and again and again. And you have been beaten up over this, by several people including myself, again and again and again. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3ABest_New_Conservative_Words&action=historysubmit&diff=1073205&oldid=1067747 here] for one of my more recent attempts to explain the issues of chaos, the uncertainty principle, and perpetual motion machines. You do know that there are two types of perpetual motion machines, those that violate the first law (which are what people usually mean by the term), and those that violate the second law, right? And see [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SamHB#A_note_on_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics here, on my user page] for a more comprehensive critique.
::::To try to explain again, the Second Law is a rigorous mathematical theorem, embodied in the Clausius Inequality, and demonstrably and accurately applicable to physics. Murphy's law is a bit of humorous folklore. It really can't begin to explain the mathematically precise concepts of entropy or the Second Law. Carnot's theorem, and all the stuff about limits on the efficiency of heat engines, are mathematically derivable consequences of the Clausius Inequality.
::::Various "folksy" statements have been made by science popularizers, like Isaac Asimov and Bill Nye, explaining the Second Law in simple terms of "disorder". Those explanations don't do justice to the mathematical theorem, and I would have preferred that Mr. Nye had not attempted to bring heat engine efficiency into the debate.
::::Finally, there are well known criteria for applicability of the Second Law, and those criteria are frequently muddled here at Conservapedia. But I can assure you, the Second Law does '''not''' say that entropy must increase on a planet continuously bathed in over 100 watts of sunlight per square meter. That amount of energy can, by a wide margin, account for the entropy changes that occur during biological evolution. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)
:::::In fact, the 2nd Law is much more of a problem for life than for evolution. An oak tree represents much less entropy than the billions of molecules of carbon dioxide and water that went into it. And an acorn planted where there is no sunlight will just disintegrate. The chemistry of life ''is'' energy used to decrease entropy.
::::::I agree; without the constant presence of God, all life would cease immediately. This is similar to my theory of fridges, except they get their "life force" from a darker place, if you know what I mean. [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 19:50, 12 February 2014 (EST)

On the other hand, there is no march towards complexity in evolution. It's true that the exploitation of many ecological niches required more complexity than prior niches (a single cell in the ocean needs many fewer systems than an organism on land) but if a simpler organism can succeed, evolution will be just as likely to see it succeed. And if an given level of complexity works in an environment, evolution will not pressure it to change at all (this is why we still have monkeys).

I never understood why the misstatement about the 2nd law ("the sun doesn't matter"/"isolated system is a technicality") is never discussed in light of the chemistry and physics of life. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 19:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

A humorous thing about the debate is that you have creationists upset that Ham did not level Nye during the debate and you have atheists/evolutionists saying they are upset that Nye did not level Ham during the debate.

[[Duane Gish]] and [[Shockofgod]] were able to think quick on their feet in debates and were good at going on the attack debates in addition to defending the creation/Christian view. And they were reasonable and likeable in their debates. As a result, they obliterated their atheist/evolutionist opponents in debates while still opening the door for people to accept the Christian position. You have to tear down your opponent's arguments if you want to achieve strong victories in debates. You can't just defend your own view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:54, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::::I was commenting only on one particular debate that I saw. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)
:Bill Nye's claim that the Bible is not predictive is proven wrong by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. Ken Ham could have done even better by citing some of the examples from that entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, you wrote: "It was good that Bill Nye pointed out that the vast majority of Christians (disclaimer: this includes me) and other theists, in the scientific community, do not accept the YEC "just so story"." Setting aside the issue of whether this is an illogical ad populum logical fallacy, I don't even know if this is true. Tell me what the percentage of [[global Christianity]] consists of evangelicals/pentecostals/charismatic Christians and what percentage of those are evolutionists? And please cite reputable sources. Also, given the [http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/slaughter-dissidents-p-963.html?osCsid=7eedafarorb0cn93ebc1m66se3 amount of repression] within the scientific community towards Darwinism dissenters, how can you accurately tell me what percentage of scientists are evolutionists? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:22, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::::It wasn't my purpose to get into the issue of what percentage of Christians do not accept YEC. I was simply commenting on the fact that Mr. Nye said so. If it wasn't true, I'm sure there are other people on the wide expanses of the internet who have pointed this out. Perhaps even you. Many of these web sites have comment sections that allow for debate. Go to it! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)
SamHB, have you seen [http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons/after-eden/accurate-science THIS]. So much for your argument that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis don't use humor/satire to poke fun at evolutionary nonsense. And I am sorry to hear that you are an evolutionist stuffed shirt who has a [[Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?|flying feline]] furball caught in your throat! It is not my fault that evolutionists use an obscene amount of artistic license to deceive people with their deceptive drawings/graphics.
::::I don't believe I '''ever''' said that Ken Ham, or AiG, don't use humor. I simply said that Bill Nye's attempts at humor weren't well done. There's a difference there, don't you think? I don't think your Flying Kitty clip is an example of humor. I really don't know what it is an example of. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'':

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." See: [[Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?]]

I hope that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:38, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::::Sure does. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

===More from IDuan===
Yes Andy, Bill Nye was stupid to reference the Super Bowl (111 million viewers), but why didn't Ken Ham cite the Biblical scientific foreknowledge entry (121 thousand views)? Weird.

I still think the point of the fossil order holds true - if there was a flood and it drained quickly - the animal fossils would mix. Not one instance of that has been found? As Nye said - if anyone here wants to do some archaeology - if one person finds an example of a mammal not where it should be - that would change the science entirely. Meanwhile - again - what did Ham say would prove him wrong? If the God of his Bible that says his God is the real God tells him that what his Bible says isn't true. Fantastic.

Sam makes a great point about predictions - I assume Andy didn't read it since he suggested the Biblical foreknowledge entry. Sam also makes a great point about Ham conceding that parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taking literally - picking and choosing is exactly what non-literalist have been accusing literalists of doing for years - and all the while literalists have been crying "you can't pick and choose!" when it comes to issues like gay marriage. I also like Nye's point about the vast majority of Christians not accepting Ken Ham's argument. I also liked his points about rock dating, trees being older than 6,000 years, ice layers, etc. But again - believing the earth is 6000 years old is almost a conspiracy theory. It's just like the people who believe Obama is Kenyan or 9/11 is an inside job. They will never ever believe otherwise. If you show them evidence proving otherwise, they say that was fabricated or wrong in some way. I don't know how effective these debates are.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:49, 6 February 2014 (EST)
:Iduan, why are you letting the atheist [[Bill Nye]] do your thinking for you and failing to do your due diligence? You seem to be taking what he says at face value and not be engaging in critical thinking. Nye declared that most Christians are not YECS. Even if this point were conceded by YECs and many would not concede this, why does this ad populum logical fallacy matter so much to you? It is an illogical argument.

:Next, "Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in 'dinosaur-era' layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees."[http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate] See: http://creation.com/so-called-age-of-dinosaurs and http://creation.com/evolution-exams-fossil-fallacies#fossil

:Iduan, you have to stop being so gullible when it comes to the claims of evolutionists. Please see: [http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate Fact checking of Bill Nye's claims in the Nye-Ham debate]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::Iduan, sorry for using the world gullible. I could have been more diplomatic. I wish Mr. Ham would have replied to more of Mr. Nye's claims rather than spending so much time on the operational science vs. historical science issue. I think you assumed that if Ken did not respond to all of Nye's claims, then there were no effective replies. But I just showed that there was no effective replies. Given the time constraints of debates, I don't think that is a safe assumption.

::I think Mr. Ham could have more concisely covered that historical science issue and used a few prominent evolutionists quotes to illustrate the distinction between operational and historical science. For example, "As the eminent evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] has stated, 'evolutionary biology is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'"[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/OASresolutionRESPONSE.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 7 February 2014 (EST)

== Homosexual Agenda and Google ==

Google has finally jumped the shark and are now openly promoting the [[Homosexual Agenda]] on their mainpage. I think this shocking, abhorrent and society damaging move should be mentioned on the mainpage, with a recommendation to use a more family friendly search engine such as bing!. [[User:EricaB|EricaB]] 10:06, 7 February 2014 (EST)
:Got a link to the Google thing you have to harp on here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:16, 7 February 2014 (EST)
:: the link is www.google.com. The mainpage now features a psuedo gay pride flag and a statement essentially trying to support homosexuals. Absolutely disgraceful on their part and not respecting one of the only sensible laws that exists in Russia.[[User:EricaB|EricaB]] 11:31, 7 February 2014 (EST)
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/07/google-russian-anti-gay-laws-winter-olympics Here is a link] - EricaB, as certain as I am that she is trolling ("one of the only sensible laws that exists in Russia" is overdoing it) is right. Google has used the rainbow flag over their letters with images of athletes, and in addition - although not always - the Olympic charter passage on discrimination appears below the search bar (shown in the link provided, but I only got it one time when I've been to Google quite a few times to check it out). Here's the thing - while the American right absolutely does not support gay marriage - Russia is really jailing homosexuals for a really dubious charge, so as hesitant as we might be to say we support gay rights - I think no one here would really disagree with "But we also don't think gay people should be thrown in jail."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:37, 7 February 2014 (EST)
:It should also be noted that the person I'm accusing of parody posted this message 6 times on Karajou's talk, on Andy's talk and on Main Page talk. Attention seeking?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:39, 7 February 2014 (EST)
*Even if it was a parodist posting this, I still steer clear of Google because they track people and are in bed with Obama's NSA. Plus the fact that they have recently been cramming Obama down people's throat on YouTube turns my stomach. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:27, 7 February 2014 (EST)
*I can get past the gay thing. After all, the Lord was cool with David and Jonathan. In fact, I'm seeing [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whFBCIzwxp8 a lot of ungay just melting away] these days. Don't forget that [[Fred Phelps]] is a Democrat. As for Google, it has been [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517514/Is-Google-secretly-bankrolling-right-wing-US-political-groups-cheered-government-shutdown.html shifting] [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304856504579339031332776594 to the right] recently. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:39, 8 February 2014 (EST)

::Why was my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1076804&oldid=1076793 reproof deleted] of this absurd homosexual idea of David and Jonathan? And after that i could not access any CP pages for about a week. Daniel1212 18:38, 14 February 2014 (EST)

::Here it is again. for the record:

:: "The Lord was cool with David and Jonathan" engaging in a homosexual relationship? Then you need to read the [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] page! Or see [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#David here]. Prohomosexual apologists support forcing sex into passages it does not belong in, and turning David and Jonathan into a homosexual affair is one of them, while they typically resort to charging that the steamy parts were left out by [[homophobic]] editors, thus undermining the authority of Scripture, as this is a goal, if they cannot use it to support.

::Meanwhile, for a long time Google has acted like the majority of media,[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Media] giving far more to Democrats over the past 23 years, though less this year/ [http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022008&cycle=A] Way back in 2004, of the over $200,000 Google employees gave to federal candidates in 2004, “98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.” Daniel1212 11:09, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:::‭In the material you link to, the focus is on demonstrating that David and Jonathan were not married -- and I didn’t claim that they were. While ‬I have no idea how what feelings they might have had for each other, the view that they were lovers is a traditional one. Michelangelo depicted David as a homoerotic hunk. In the days before you could talk about homosexuality directly, the relationship was used to make coded references. If example, Edward II mourned for Piers Gaveston as, “David had mourned for Jonathan," according to ''Vita Edwardi Secundi.'' [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:15, 19 February 2014 (EST)

==A suggestion concerning spam==
Not sure if this is possible with Conservapedia's software but as most spam accounts are gobbledigook over 7 letters or more would user names with a maximum of 6 letters help.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 12:47, 7 February 2014 (EST)

==Is it Biden time again?==
If Biden can't think of a reason he shouldn't run for president, here are ten of them: [http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895156_1894977_1846619,00.html Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes]. Also, you can [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ listen to Biden call Obama a "clean" African-American]. I hear that Obama uses soap and water -- and gets ''behind'' the ears too! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlSX9TT2eo How many letters does the word "jobs" have?] Just give us a rough estimate, Mr. Vice President! [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 08:37, 8 February 2014 (EST)
:Biden's a ham but I'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the current Democratic or Republican field that cares more about working and middle class Americans than he does. Yes, that includes Hillary too. --[[User:Kennywillis|Kennywillis]] 10:32, 8 February 2014 (EST)
Kennywillis, [[Don Quixote]] cared a lot about his quests (Impossible dreams). You have to have more than caring to help people. You need competency and a workable plan that you are willing to apply effort to. The bottom line is that economy is changing and people have to upgrade their skills and wisely invest more.

And the USA should truly reform their banking system and get rid of the Federal Reserve and their quantitative easing policy which makes the rich unjustly wealthier. In addition, put some banksters and more white collar criminals in jail and have them pay more restitution. The 2008 financial crisis did not see too many white collar criminals wind up in jail or pay a significant amount of restitution and that is because Wall Street and the banking sector were big financial supporters of Barack Hussein Obama/Joe Biden presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket in the 2008 election.

Biden is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Biden has helped pour money into the pockets of overpaid governmental workers and the financial/bankster class and done little to help the middle class and poor advance themselves. The Obama presidency has been a failure and that is why Obama's approval rating is about 40% according to Gallup. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:29, 8 February 2014 (EST)

== Gay people/first medal ==

Were there any gay candidates competing in slope style? Furthermore since gay people - liberally estimated - make up 15% of the population at best - and probably a smaller percentage of male athletes - did anyone not expect a heterosexual male to win? A straight man was also elected president in 2012 - was that a stinging defeat for gay groups? I don't get it. --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:34, 8 February 2014 (EST)
:Did you notice that Google got rid of their rainbow Olympics graphic. :) It must have been quite upsetting for them to see a heterosexual man from Idaho/Utah win the first Olympic gold! First Obama politically self-destructs in 2013 and now this! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:42, 8 February 2014 (EST)
::I believe that Google routinely takes down their novelty graphics after one day. I doubt that seeing Sage Kotsenburg win gold upset anyone there. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/how-many-american-men-are-gay.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 This article] in the ''New York Times'' looks at the different estimates of how many American men are gay. The best guess seems to be 3.6 percent. [http://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual The estimates for other countries] are quite a bit lower. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:22, 9 February 2014 (EST)+
::: You are obsessed. You use this great site as entryism for your own axe to grind. Entryism is a very soicalist concept. I have decided you can safely be ignored. --[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 00:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)
::::"A regular on these Klammer Days is a ski instructor called Ingrid, from Vienna, where Franz lives with his wife and two children."[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1158279/Ski-breaks-The-day-I-ate-Kaiser-Klammers-powder-loved-.html] Franz Klammer, the greatest downhill skier of all time, a [[heterosexuality|heterosexual]] as straight as an arrow! See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYj9kIxAL_o Franz Klammer - 1976 Olympic Gold Medal Run] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:20, 9 February 2014 (EST)
Iduan, you wrote: "did anyone not expect a heterosexual male to win?". Much to the dismay of effete liberals, heterosexual he-man are going to dominate the gold medal winning in men's Olympic events once again. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)
*Perhaps this article answers the original question: "[http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/russia/140203/6-openly-gay-athletes-sochi-olympics-russia These are the 6 openly gay athletes competing at the Sochi Olympics]". [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 07:09, 9 February 2014 (EST)
:::I truly fail to see what was wrong with the rainbow graphic. I think government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all, but what's wrong with treating gay people decently? --[[User:Kennywillis|Kennywillis]] 10:20, 9 February 2014 (EST)
Conservative - surely Martin Luther king jr is rolling in his grave as well. Once again African Americans are not dominating at the winter games - another huge blow to those who think they deserve "equal rights"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:51, 9 February 2014 (EST)
===section break===
Was this Sage's win a huge blow to the African American community as well? I noticed he was a white male. I also noticed he does not have red hair. Are gingers numb in shock and disappointment? Should we waste 3 headlines talking about it? Will you begin to understand from these examples that a straight white American with brown hair winning a medal wouldn't inherently upset gays, blacks, blondes or anyone else?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)
:here's why none of these groups would be upset - only a fool would think the number of rights you get corresponds to the number of medals you win at the Olympics.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:00, 9 February 2014 (EST)

At 5ft 10in isn't Sage Kotsenburg's win a blow for the midget agenda? (Mike Davis) 12:24, 9 February 2014 (EST)
::To pick a totally random example, Jimmy Fallon is straight. Is this a "crushing blow to the homosexual agenda"? And yet, the Kotsenburg win was described that way on the main page for a while. It was later changed to two much less focused entries, one stating that "The homosexual agenda suffers another defeat." Remember, folks: This is what people see when they first come to Conservapedia. We shouldn't give the impression that CP is run by people with unhealthy obsessions.
::By the way, I have read a report that Daniela Iraschko-Stolz, who is lesbian, is favored to win gold in the womens ski jump. Adjust your expectations and attitudes, and think about your mainpage headlines, appropriately. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

=== Martin Luther King on homosexuality - He saw homosexuality as a problem ===

Martin Luther King (MLK) never championed the homosexual agenda. In fact, MLK saw homosexuality as a "problem". “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

Why are liberals so inept when it comes to history? Poor public schools which indoctrinate students into liberal ideology? Why are liberals so illogical? Poor training in public schools when it comes to critical thinking and logic? Over and over again I see liberals assert things without doing their due diligence. It is like ideology trumps facts and logic.

There really is no excuse for this behavior. You are in the information age and information can be quickly found and fact checked. It is simply due to intellectual laziness and arrogance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:I would be careful on this. Just because Martin Luther King was leery of homosexuality doesn't mean that we as conservatives should necessarily celebrate him. This is a man who said some rather dubious things about communism/socialism and claimed that the government was there to redistribute wealth. Even more troubling is that he accused Barry Goldwater of showing signs of Hitlerism. This is especially fallacious considering that Goldwater had jewish ancestry and fought for this country in World War II. So I don't have much respect for Martin Luther King. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 21:07, 16 February 2014 (EST)
::I merely quoted MLK to rebut pro-homosexual agenda apologists on this talk page. Second, [http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=884 hostile witness testimony] in a court of law is often a very compelling/convincing argument to jurors. Quoting people who tended to lean towards the left, likewise, can be an effective strategy/tactic for conservatives to employ. Third, there are things that MLK said which conservatives agree with such as judging people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:24, 16 February 2014 (EST)

===no one said Martin Luther king jr supported gay rights===

seriously this is what you took from that post? '''My point was (really obviously) that gays wouldn't upset about a man winning a medal because he was straight, in the same way that Martin Luther king jr wouldn't be upset because safe was white'''. That's why I and another user made comments about red heads and midgets being upset. Read the posts again my friend.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:44, 9 February 2014 (EST)

=== Parting comment about the matter of homosexuality in the 2014 Olympics ===

There is about 6,000 athletes competing in the Olympics.[http://www.mapsofworld.com/olympics/trivia/number-of-participants.html]. About 6 are openly homosexual which is not exactly an impressive number. Liberals and the liberal media are making a tempest in a teapot about homosexuality and the 2014 Olympics. Liberals shouldn't be surprised when conservative criticism and conservative mocking occurs about this matter.

From a humanitarian point of view, it makes much more sense to increase the participation of poor countries in the Olympics than to fuss about a small group of athletes [[Homosexuality and choice|choosing to engage]] in a sinful lifestyle like homosexuality - a sinful behavior that is not without health consequences (see: [[homosexuality and health]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]] and [[homosexuality and promiscuity]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 9 February 2014 (EST)

==Gays in Africa==
Since I kno you guys are such big fans of sharia law [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/world/africa/nigeria-uses-law-and-whip-to-sanitize-gays.html?_r=0&referrer= Here's an article on how gay people are being treated in Nigeria].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:00, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:Iduan, as a group, how do homosexuals treat each other compared to heterosexual relationships?

:According to the New York Times, Dr. William Eckert was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Charles Manson murders. Dr. Eckert founded the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. According to Time magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and forensics teams.

:Dr. Eckert wrote regarding homosexual murders:

:“Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings..."

:Bernard Knight CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, FHKCPath, DMJ (Path) was a Professor of Forensic Pathology in the University of Wales until he retired in 1996.

:Doctors Knight and Saukko coauthored a pathology textbook entitled Knight's Forensic Pathology in 2004 which declared:

:"As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals."

:The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton reports:

:"Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime."

:For more information please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]] and [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]

:I wonder how many child hemophiliacs died due to AIDS spread by promiscuous homosexual males who have far more promiscuity per capita. See: [[Homosexuality and promiscuity]] and [[Homosexuality and health]].

:Societies which look down on homosexuality (conservative Abrahamic religious groups/societies, many family oriented Asian cultures, people in rural areas, many African societies) have less of it. See: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:19, 9 February 2014 (EST)

So because there are higher rates of violence in gay relationships ... Straight people should be allowed to want to kill gay people In Nigeria and Uganda? Got it.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:51, 9 February 2014 (EST)
::Iduan, not only is the violence more frequent, but it is more intense/severe as well. Of course, this is not surprising. Homosexuality is a sin (see: [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]). When a population of men/women actively engage in depravity, a higher frequency of extreme brutality is not an unexpected finding. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)
:::Cons, I just read your comments on effeminate gays, and found that somewhat odd. My boyfriend is a ridiculously "He-Man" kind of guy. Of course, I don't imagine that you meant that all gays are effeminate, but nonetheless, your comments conflicted in a rather funny way with my own experiences. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:50, 9 February 2014 (EST)
:::: So the man who tirades against atheist murder advocates murdering gays--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 07:47, 10 February 2014 (EST)
:::::JerryCa, you failed on 3 counts: 1) No true skeptics knows who or whom edits the User: Conservative account. 2) You certainly did not show there was a tirade. 3) You showed no such advocacy.

:::::By the way, did I bring forth strong expert testimony on homosexual on homosexual murders often displaying overkill/mutilation? If not, why not? I gave 3 citations to pathology journals/textbooks at: [[Homosexuality and murders]]. That is far more evidence than you brought forth on your 3 spurious claims. Why are liberals so intellectually weak? Your limp-wristed claims were rather lame! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:45, 10 February 2014 (EST)
::::::: Not the point, i notice you do not deny you support for gay murder--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 08:49, 10 February 2014 (EST)
::::::::Why don't you show there was support first? That is something you clearly have not done. We both know you merit being ignored at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 10 February 2014 (EST)
To be clear, I merely pointed out:

That homosexuals may be killing themselves more frequently (often with acts that display "overkill"/mutilation according to noted pathologists and pathology journals/textbooks) than any death sentences imposed by civil authorities in various countries or any incidents of "gay bashing". See: [[Homosexuality and murders]]

Per capita, male homosexuals have historically spread a significant amount of disease compared to heterosexuals, which includes diseases that have caused death. See: [[Homosexuality and health]] and [[Homosexuality and promiscuity]].

Furthermore, homosexuals more frequently engage in illegal drug use which cause their premature deaths: [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use]]

Also, homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]

In short, homosexuals appear to be their own worst enemies.

I also pointed out that societies which look down on homosexuality (like Abrahamic religious cultures and Asian cultures, rural communities), have less of it. See: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

I will further add that through the Christian faith and repentance, anyone can leave the homosexual lifestyle and become an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 12 February 2014 (EST)

== Michael Reagan news link. ==

Hi.

I think there's a mistake in the news tidbit about Michael Reagan and monsters in the open, as it leads to the news listed immediately prior to that one. We need to either fix it or otherwise delete it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 10:52, 10 February 2014 (EST)
::The story/link was removed. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 February 2014 (EST)

== Christians Are The World’s Most Oppressed Religious Group ==

So let me get this straight...Christians and Muslims get harassed in the '''same''' number of countries (110 vs. 109), and even though there are almost 50% more Christian than Muslims, Christians are the most oppressed religious group? What a strange conclusion. At the very least, Christians and Muslims get oppressed in about the same number of countries. Perhaps a headline bemoaning Muslim oppression? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:06, 10 February 2014 (EST)
::Eric, it does not appear that you know much about [[Global Christianity]]. Christianity is the most geographically dispersed religion in the world and Christians are the minority religion in many places: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/ Muslims are more concentrated than Christians in terms of their distribution, but they are becoming more distributed due to the low birth rates of secular Europeans/Westerners and due to the Syrian civil war.

::Also, relative to evangelical/Protestant Christianity, historically Muslims are much more violent and are now known for terrorism. I do realize the GW Bush (and Obama who has a syncretic religion of [[liberal Christianity]]/Islam/securalistic religion/ideology and believes there are many roads to heaven) had a poor foreign policy and the United States did not need to get involved in two unnecessary wars (Israel did seek justice against the terrorists of the Munich games without going to war. Several terrorists lost their lives via spies/assassination). GW Bush was a neo-conservative and not a traditional conservative (big spender, aggressive foreign policy).

::Lastly, in the Western World which has historically undergone a lot of Christianization, presently and historically in the 20th/21st centuries, there is not a large scale burning of mosques, but in the Middle East, lately there has been a lot of burning of churches (Egypt, Iraq, etc). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:20, 10 February 2014 (EST)

==Snowboarder risk-taking==
I agree with Chuck Norris that there's no gold without bold, no gain without pain, etc - but risk taking in snowboarding and many other sports has a tragic backstory that needs due consideration. Watch the recent documentary film, [http://thecrashreel.com The Crash Reel'] about Shaun White's former main competition, Kevin Pearce, for an inside look at rash decision taking in sports. We push our sportsmen and women, particularly in extreme sports, to achieve more and more extraordinary stunts, but this comes at a price, which can often be a traumatic brain injury or even death. And I don't think the issue has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, to be honest. See the movie, it's excellent. And maybe take what Chuck Norris says with a little grain of salt. If it was your son or daughter up there, you mightn't be so happy with the culture of risk-taking. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 00:29, 12 February 2014 (EST)
:You made some good points. I also watched a Kevin Pearce interview. The cost/benefit ratio of a fireman/policeman/missionary, etc. putting himself at significant bodily risk can be justified, but to do it for thrills/prize money/medals/entertainment is hard to rationally justify. As per your implied request, I will delete the main page entry. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 12 February 2014 (EST)
Well, I actually wasn't looking for that, just discussing it. It's a valid discussion, and I just wanted to air an alternative viewpoint. But, do as you may. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 00:52, 13 February 2014 (EST)

== Belgium headline question ==

I think someone misread the article - the article states the patient would have to make repeated requests - it says nothing about if it's against the child's will.
:"The law states a child would have to be terminally ill, face "unbearable physical suffering" and make repeated requests to die - before euthanasia is considered."
No?-[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:49, 13 February 2014 (EST)

:The child has no power to stop the euthanasia under the Belgian law. It is akin to [[abortion]], but for children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 13 February 2014 (EST)
::As horrible a precedent as this sets, the law ''requires'' the child's assent. He must ask for death, multiple times. All information I can find, including the article you cited, concurs. Do you have a link to different information? This is so awful that we need to be accurate in our condemnation. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 22:13, 13 February 2014 (EST)
What are you talking about Andy? Read the article - as a lawyer you should be able to ascertain the facts better than this. The child's repeated request for the euthanasia is clearly listed as integral - along with parental consent. You're inventing a story. The article you posted doesn't support your fictitious claim. You made a mistake - you have two options - own up to it, or take a cowardly delusional route and just wait till it blows over. Your call.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:34, 13 February 2014 (EST)

:It would be great to review the law itself. Some newspaper articles try to sugarcoat it. A guardian typically has the legal authority to make decisions for a child. This Belgian law appears to be legalized abortion on children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 13 February 2014 (EST)

Regardless of the specifics of this law, there is a broader point. A child is not capable of giving consent. If you have sex with a child, it is rape even if they say you can, because they are deemed not capable of giving consent. Similarly it would seem that if a child were killed under this law with their consent, it could be argued that they were not able to give consent. The first test case will be interesting - and disturbing. --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 14 February 2014 (EST)
:Andy so your reaction is to post a speculative claim that directly contradicts the article because you're too lazy to find the law, and it's easier to just assume. Great. Also to say that this is abortion after birth is inflammatory nonsense - these are terminally ill kids in a great deal of pain requesting to die. dhouser I honestly don't know enough about age of consent in Belgium - keep in mind parental agreement is also required for this medical decision - but I sincerely doubt the first case will be some legal test. The law was already passed. Who would even have standing to sue? The parents - who were required to consent? Nonsense. Regardless saying the child can't give proper consent is still vastly different than "against the child's will". --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:14, 14 February 2014 (EST)

::Iduan, the liberal media say the same thing about abortion, that there are limits on it, blah blah blah, when the reality is that there are no meaningful limits on abortion in the United States. A carefully reading of the news stories about the Belgium law reveal that a pro-euthanasia physician can interview the child and then make the decision to approve it. I've looked and looked and find no meaningful safeguard for the child.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:35, 14 February 2014 (EST)
So when the law says the patients request is required - and you're saying a physician might break the law and kill the child. That's murder Andy it's not the law - so suggesting the law itself says a child can be euthanized against his will is still incorrect. Suggesting there are possibilities for abuse could be correct depending on your phrasing.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:56, 14 February 2014 (EST)

:Iduan, you're wrong here and Andy is right on. This law is basically legalized abortion for children. Just like abortion, the child has to be terminally ill, have parental consent, and personally request the procedure, just like abortion, how can't you see that.

The "patients' request" is by a guardian who may not want to take care of the child any longer. This reminds me of the "health" exception to limits on abortion ... where "health" was interpreted to meaning anything, even financial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 14 February 2014 (EST)
:Andy according to the article, your wrong - the patient's request is the child's request, and consent ALSO has to be given by the parents/guardians. Read better.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:28, 14 February 2014 (EST)

The latest story from CNN gives as an example a 10-month-old child, who would instinctively fight any overt attempt at euthanasia (just as an unborn child does). The article does not say a child's consent is required, but that a parent or guardian's consent is. [http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/world/europe/belgium-euthanasia-law-children/]
*The article certainly implies that the child's consent is required. Let's go to [http://www.senat.be/www/?MIval=/publications/viewPubDoc&TID=83897196&LANG=fr the actual text of the bill itself] (which modifies [http://www.theux.be/shared/pop_nl_en_de/p/eutha.pdf the existing law]):
**The original law's section 1 (pertaining to consent) read:
**:« Le médecin qui pratique une euthanasie ne commet pas d'infraction s'il s'est assuré que: le patient est majeur ou mineur émancipé, capable et conscient au moment de sa demande; la demande est formulée de manière volontaire, réfléchie et répétée, et qu'elle ne résulte pas d'une pression extérieure; le patient se trouve dans une situation médicale sans issue et fait état d'une souffrance physique ou psychique constante et insupportable qui ne peut être apaisée et qui résulte d'une affection accidentelle ou pathologique grave et incurable; et qu'il respecte les conditions et procédures prescrites par la présente loi.» (translation: The doctor who practices a euthanasia does not commit an infraction if: he is assured that the patient is an adult or emancipated minor, capable and conscious at the moment of his or her request; the request is made voluntarilty, repeatedly, and reflectively, and is not the result of external pressure; the patient finds himself or herself in a permanent medical situation in a state of constant and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased and is the result of a grave and incurable, accidental or pathological disease, and such request respects the conditions and procedures set forth in this law.).
**The bill modifies this section to read:
**:«Le médecin qui pratique une euthanasie ne commet pas d'infraction s'il s'est assuré que: '''le patient est majeur ou mineur émancipé, capable ou mineur doté de la capacité de discernement et est conscient au moment de sa demande;''' la demande est formulée de manière volontaire, réfléchie et répétée, et qu'elle ne résulte pas d'une pression extérieure; le patient '''majeur ou mineur émancipé''' se trouve dans une situation médicale sans issue et fait état d'une souffrance physique ou psychique constante et insupportable qui ne peut être apaisée et qui résulte d'une affection accidentelle ou pathologique grave et incurable; et qu'il respecte les conditions et procédures prescrites par la présente loi'''; le patient mineur doté de la capacité de discernement se trouve dans une situation médicale sans issue entraînant le décès à brève échéance et fait état d'une souffrance physique constante et insupportable qui ne peut être apaisée et qui résulte d'une affection accidentelle ou pathologique grave et incurable.'''» (bold indicates new language; translation: The doctor who practices a euthanasia does not commit an infraction if: he is assured that '''the patient is an adult or emancipated minor, capable, or a minor endowed with the capacity of discernment, and conscious at the moment of his or her request;''' the request is made voluntarily, repeatedly, and reflectively, and is not the result of external pressure; the '''adult or emancipated minor''' patient finds himself or herself in a permanent medical situation in a state of constant and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased and is the result of a grave and incurable, accidental or pathological disease, and such request respects the conditions and procedures set forth in this law'''; the minor patient given the capacity of discernment finds himself or herself in a permanent lively medical situation leading to a short-term death in a state of constant and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased and is the result of a grave and incurable, accidental or pathological disease.''')
*Thus, we see that the existing requirement for the patient to make repeated requests without external pressure is not changed. The bill adds the following language as well:
*:«La demande du patient ainsi que l'accord des représentants légaux si le patient est mineur doivent être actés par écrit» (translation: The patient's request as well as the agreement of the legal representatives if the patient is a minor has to be made in writing.)
*Euthanasia is a grave wrong that should be universally condemned. This does not entail the erection of straw men (like a minor being killed without his consent), though. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:41, 15 February 2014 (EST)

::Marvelous posting, Greg. But as your translation illustrates, there is no requirement of an independent assessment of the desire by a child (to live). Quite the contrary: the law allows a guardian to cause the result the guardian wants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 15 February 2014 (EST)

== Gay Agenda and Olympics ==

Andy please explain how gay marriages - which aren't legal in most us states and only have been legal in some since ... 2006? ... Have affected the training regimens of the athletes who compete in the Olympics - bearing in mind that the athletes almost always have private trainers.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:32, 15 February 2014 (EST)
:if it is just culture - can you explain how this year the Seattle Seahawks won tw Super Bowl - their only close contest in the playoffs was the 49ers - and both Washingon and California have legalized gay marriage?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:34, 15 February 2014 (EST)
::Iduan, how many heavyweight, boxing champions of the world have been open homosexuals? How many martial arts, dojo masters are open homosexuals? Look at the [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/iaglma.org web traffic] for the International Association of Gay and Lesbian Martial Artists. It is anemic.

::Societies which embrace homosexuality weaken themselves and can't compete as effectively in sports all other things remaining equal. And over the long term, societies which embrace homosexuality don't have as many people in the their populations in order to compete in the Olympics as homosexuality reduces the fertility rate of societies.

::I hope this clarifies things for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:01, 15 February 2014 (EST)

"If it is just culture" ... culture has a big influence on competitiveness and achievement. Does anyone deny that??? The homosexual agenda does not improve competitiveness and achievement.

NFL players often do not even live in the same state where they play, and the average length of a career in the NFL is very brief. If the NFL competed against nations that reject the homosexual agenda, such as Russia or Germany, then that analogy might work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:43, 15 February 2014 (EST)
::Naturally, do you have evidence that homosexuals are less competitive than heterosexuals? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:12, 15 February 2014 (EST)
:::Brenden, give me the name of 3 openly homosexual, martial arts, dojo masters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Conservative no one is questioning that gays don't typically gravitate towards especially masculine sports - Michael Sam or no - but I'm questioning whether straight athletes' performance is affected by gay marriage laws.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:::Increasing or praising "competitiveness" is no part of the [[Homosexual Agenda]]. Unlike [[Christianity]], which supports free speech and welcomes competition, the [[Homosexual Agenda]] tries to prohibit speech like [[conversion therapy]] and thereby avoid competition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:25, 15 February 2014 (EST)

::::In further response, Christianity is a belief system that welcomes free speech and competition. The homosexuality belief system does neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:34, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Okay Andy so you're blaming our athletes for not being competitive enough? Fascinating. New Jersey allows gay marriage, yes? Andy please tell me how you personally have lost your competitive edge because of gay marriage being legalized in your state.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:31, 16 February 2014 (EST)
:you've selected to live in a state whose culture - which according to you has a big influence - no longer embraces competition. So surely you've been affected. Do you feel less manly? And before you cop out and say you're a Christian so you're not affected - I'll need evidence that the athletes competing - like our dear conservative friend Sage K. - are not Christians.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:41, 16 February 2014 (EST)
:::::"Homosexuals" are not competitive. The following would like to disagree. Nikolai Yezhov, Народный комиссариат внутренних дел, a ruthless, but very competitive head of the [[NKVD]]. Tim Cook, head of Apple Corp, also a ruthless, but extraordinarily competitive person. Alan Turing, who's rather remarkable research gives us modern computers. Andrei Tupolev, founder of ОКБ Туполев, a very prolific soviet design bureau, whose aircraft gave NATO severe headaches up until the end of the cold war. The list goes on, and on, and on. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:39, 16 February 2014 (EST)

To put things in perspective: the Netherlands, a tiny country which embraces homosexuality, are so far second runner-up in the Winter Olympics medal count. [[User:PaulKresnik|PaulKresnik]] 13:00, 17 February 2014 (EST)

==franchises are liberal==
Now entire franchises are liberal?! Fascinating. Tell me how many titles do the lakers have compared to the thunder/sonics?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:53, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:Your question is about as relevant today as asking how many television sets Zenith sold.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:05, 16 February 2014 (EST)
::actually if you call an entire franchise liberal it suggests pervasive culture (you know the buss family has owned the lakers for forever right?). The lakers have won 16 championships - the thunder ONE. And Kevin durant 0. You lose!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:08, 16 February 2014 (EST)
By the way you didn't respond to my challenge above. Perhaps gay marriage being legal in your state really has cost you your machismo? Sad.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:13, 16 February 2014 (EST)

User talk:Iduan/Archive25

2014-02-20T16:40:41Z

Iduan: archive

==A new section==
I really really like the edits you have been making recently. Keep up the good work. And I decided to post this even before your recent edits about Democrats and Republicans.

I assume there's a reason you want to keep the horrible bullying, by someone who was unmasked as a (I'm not sure what, but it wasn't good) on your talk page. I personally would remove such things, but I guess there really ''is'' a lesson here. By the way, I exchanged some email with him after he was banned, and he was even worse than he let on publicly. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:38, 18 December 2013 (EST)
:Thank you! No no, Markman was such a bother I just haven't archived in a while - I'm not especially proud of that reaction but things had gotten incredibly tense over his block of NKeaton - a user who I still think was good-faith. Unfortunately, it's a sad reality that we almost certainly lost multiple good faith editors because of his malicious blocking. Sorry you had the misfortune of an email exchange!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:16, 18 December 2013 (EST)

User talk:Iduan

2014-02-20T16:38:33Z

Iduan: archive

User talk:Iduan

2014-02-19T23:11:19Z

Iduan: post response - feel free to contact me here or on email

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*2007
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December)]] 
*2008
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]
*[[/Archive8|(August)]] 
*2009
*[[/Archive9|(January)]]
*[[/Archive10|(February)]]
*[[/Archive11|(March)]]
*[[/Archive12|(April)]] 
*2010
*[[/Archive13|(January)]]
*[[/Archive14|(June)]]
*[[/Archive15|(July)]] 
*2011
*[[/Archive16|(March)]]
*[[/Archive17|(April)]]
*[[/Archive18|(May)]]
*[[/Archive19|(June)]]
*[[/Archive20|(July)]]
*[[/Archive21|(August)]]
*[[/Archive22|(November)]] 
*2012
*[[/Archive23|(November)]] 
*2013
*[[/Archive24|(July)]]
</div>
|}

==A new section==
I really really like the edits you have been making recently. Keep up the good work. And I decided to post this even before your recent edits about Democrats and Republicans.

I assume there's a reason you want to keep the horrible bullying, by someone who was unmasked as a (I'm not sure what, but it wasn't good) on your talk page. I personally would remove such things, but I guess there really ''is'' a lesson here. By the way, I exchanged some email with him after he was banned, and he was even worse than he let on publicly. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:38, 18 December 2013 (EST)
:Thank you! No no, Markman was such a bother I just haven't archived in a while - I'm not especially proud of that reaction but things had gotten incredibly tense over his block of NKeaton - a user who I still think was good-faith. Unfortunately, it's a sad reality that we almost certainly lost multiple good faith editors because of his malicious blocking. Sorry you had the misfortune of an email exchange!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:16, 18 December 2013 (EST)

== Thoughts on clarifying some username policies. ==

Please check your email so I can ask some questions about these.--[[User:ChrisB00|ChrisB00]] 17:16, 19 February 2014 (EST)

Also, I don't know why this posted three times.--[[User:ChrisB00|ChrisB00]] 17:18, 19 February 2014 (EST)
:I deleted the extra sections. Responded to your email - feel free to ask any questions. Just so everyone knows what I sent/to clarify: Username policy is that you use your first name and last initial; you might see a few users who don't fit under that policy (Conservative, Karajou - even I use the opposite (although your first initial last name would also be okay)), but that is because those users predate the policy.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:11, 19 February 2014 (EST)

Haley Barbour

2014-02-19T18:49:11Z

Iduan: Edit to re add adjective

{{Officeholder
|name=Haley Barbour
|image=Haley Barbour2006.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marsha Barbour
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=62nd
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 13, 2004 – January 10, 2012
|lieutenant=Amy Tuck [[Phil Bryant]] Tate Reeves
|preceded=[[Ronnie Musgrove]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Phil Bryant]]
}}
{{Officeholder/chairman
|party=Republican National Committee
|number=56th
|terms=January 29, 1993 – January 17, 1997
|preceded=[[Richard Bond]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Jim Nicholson]]
}}
}}

'''Haley Barbour''' (Born, October 22, 1947) is the former popular [[Republican]] governor of [[Mississippi]]. His effective handling of [[Hurricane Katrina]]'s effects on his state was widely praised, in contrast with the disastrous recovery effort in neighboring [[Louisiana]]. After heading the [[Republican National Committee]] from 1993-1997, during which the GOP captured both houses of Congress, Barbour succeeded [[Mark Sanford]] as the leader of the Republican Governors Association in 2009. Term-limited as governor, Barbour has been the subject of speculation about a run for national office, and is expected by some to seek the Republican nomination for [[president]] in 2012. Prior to his election as governor, he headed Barbour Griffith and Rogers, one of the nation's top lobbying firms. He served as Director of the [[White House]] Office of Political Affairs under [[President Ronald Reagan]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Barbour, Haley}}
[[Category:Mississippi Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Phil Bryant

2014-02-19T18:40:38Z

Iduan: more

{{Officeholder
|name=Phil Bryant
|image=
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Deborah Hays
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=63rd
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 10, 2012 -
|lieutenant=Tate Reeves
|preceded=[[Haley Barbour]]
|former=n
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=31st
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 10, 2008 – January 5, 2012
|lieutenant=y
|governor= Haley Barbour
|preceded=Amy Tuck
|former=y
|succeeded=Tate Reeves
}}
}}

'''Phil Bryant''' is the [[Republican]] governor of [[Mississippi]]; he was formerly the lieutenant governor under Haley Barbour.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bryant, Phil}}
[[Category:Mississippi Governors]]
[[Category: Republican Governors]]

Haley Barbour

2014-02-19T18:15:47Z

Iduan: link

{{Officeholder
|name=Haley Barbour
|image=Haley Barbour2006.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marsha Barbour
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=62nd
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 13, 2004 – January 10, 2012
|lieutenant=Amy Tuck [[Phil Bryant]] Tate Reeves
|preceded=[[Ronnie Musgrove]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Phil Bryant]]
}}
{{Officeholder/chairman
|party=Republican National Committee
|number=56th
|terms=January 29, 1993 – January 17, 1997
|preceded=[[Richard Bond]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Jim Nicholson]]
}}
}}

'''Haley Barbour''' (Born, October 22, 1947) is the former [[Republican]] governor of [[Mississippi]]. His effective handling of [[Hurricane Katrina]]'s effects on his state was widely praised, in contrast with the disastrous recovery effort in neighboring [[Louisiana]]. After heading the [[Republican National Committee]] from 1993-1997, during which the GOP captured both houses of Congress, Barbour succeeded [[Mark Sanford]] as the leader of the Republican Governors Association in 2009. Term-limited as governor, Barbour has been the subject of speculation about a run for national office, and is expected by some to seek the Republican nomination for [[president]] in 2012. Prior to his election as governor, he headed Barbour Griffith and Rogers, one of the nation's top lobbying firms. He served as Director of the [[White House]] Office of Political Affairs under [[President Ronald Reagan]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Barbour, Haley}}
[[Category:Mississippi Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Phil Bryant

2014-02-19T18:15:20Z

Iduan: update!

{{Officeholder
|name=Phil Bryant
|image=
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Deborah Hays
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=63rd
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 10, 2012 -
|lieutenant=Tate Reeves
|preceded=[[Haley Barbour]]
|former=n
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=31st
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 10, 2008 – January 5, 2012
|lieutenant=y
|governor= Haley Barbour
|preceded=Amy Tuck
|former=y
|succeeded=Tate Reeves
}}
}}

'''Phil Bryant''' is the [[Republican]] governor of [[Mississippi]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bryant, Phil}}
[[Category:Mississippi Governors]]
[[Category: Republican Governors]]

Haley Barbour

2014-02-19T18:10:01Z

Iduan: update!

{{Officeholder
|name=Haley Barbour
|image=Haley Barbour2006.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marsha Barbour
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=62nd
|state=Mississippi
|terms=January 13, 2004 – January 10, 2012
|lieutenant=Amy Tuck Phil Bryant Tate Reeves
|preceded=[[Ronnie Musgrove]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Phil Bryant]]
}}
{{Officeholder/chairman
|party=Republican National Committee
|number=56th
|terms=January 29, 1993 – January 17, 1997
|preceded=[[Richard Bond]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Jim Nicholson]]
}}
}}

'''Haley Barbour''' (Born, October 22, 1947) is the former [[Republican]] governor of [[Mississippi]]. His effective handling of [[Hurricane Katrina]]'s effects on his state was widely praised, in contrast with the disastrous recovery effort in neighboring [[Louisiana]]. After heading the [[Republican National Committee]] from 1993-1997, during which the GOP captured both houses of Congress, Barbour succeeded [[Mark Sanford]] as the leader of the Republican Governors Association in 2009. Term-limited as governor, Barbour has been the subject of speculation about a run for national office, and is expected by some to seek the Republican nomination for [[president]] in 2012. Prior to his election as governor, he headed Barbour Griffith and Rogers, one of the nation's top lobbying firms. He served as Director of the [[White House]] Office of Political Affairs under [[President Ronald Reagan]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Barbour, Haley}}
[[Category:Mississippi Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Talk:Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-02T12:50:49Z

Iduan: so?

== Fact tags. ==

Those claims strike me as controversial. If they're so well-known, documenting them should not be a challenge. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 20:17, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:I've provided you with references. In the future I'd stick to topics that you have some knowledge about. The fact that you didn't know what a supercar was shows that you have little if any knowledge about the automotive world. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 13:57, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::Your reference said nothing about the electrocution claim and stated clearly that there was as yet no scientifically proven link between hybrid vehicles and health risks. I've edited the article to reflect that. And I know what a "supercar" is. I just think it's a silly word. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:00, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::: ''"An electric shock caused by an accident-damaged EV could kill an imprudent approacher."'' [http://www.cars21.com/article.view.php?Id=344]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:20, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::::Great. Put it in the article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:28, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

There are many incorrect and unsupported factoids in this article.

1. All cars emit harmful radiation; it is a matter of how much. It is also important to remember AC EMF is much more harmful than DC EMF based on the simple and basic principle that AC current induces electric current in conductors, and also people, while DC generally does not. The Volt’s large DC battery under the driver and passengers is not inducing any current through the body of the car or the passengers. AC current is used by the Volt, like all cars, primarily under the hood.
http://www.lessemf.com/pamphlet.html

2. The engine can couple itself to the drive train under certain circumstances to improve efficiency.
Once the Volt’s battery is depleted, the engine fires up and clutches to the generator to produce the power required to drive the car. Above 70 mph, when the generator couples to the ring gear, the engine gets a more efficient direct mechanical connection to the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2PXuPwSce

3. As for the car’s alleged high inefficiency, the Volt is rated at 37 mpg while using the gasoline engine. Not bad for a 3700 lb car, which by the way does have a drive shaft.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/11/volt-20101124.html

4. The Volt is subsidized, but not through factory rebates. Someone who purchases, not a leases, can qualify for a tax rebate of up to $7500.00 using form IRS 8936. If someone buys a Volt and their tax is under $7500.00 they will not receive the full rebate.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf

5. I would like to see the math concerning the alleged $100,000+ it is costing GM to produce the Volt. Every new car model is subject to development costs. Wonder what the development of the new Chevy Corvette cost? Corvettes are out sold by Volts yet it is considered to be a very successful car.

6. Based on what has been written in this article, it seems to me the person(s) know rather little about automobiles. And remember, the Volt has the highest rate of owner satisfaction. Not bad, eh?
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/

7. I’d like to see this article conform to the Conservapedia Commandments. i.e. true and verifiable, cite sources, etc. The liberal/homosexual thing comes to mind, sounds like opinion, not fact.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 21:35, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:The fact that [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car] is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily [http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/ to meet a California regulation]. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)
:::Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)
::::Yes, Reuters and the WSJ provide news. Yet Reuters didn’t show their math and even admitted the limitations of their so-called conclusions. Your WSJ reference is dated, maybe try to obtain something more recent?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:35, 30 January 2014 (EST)

==Rules proposal==
I think Norman brought up some valid points about this particular vehicle, as well as Peter. I think green energy politics may be involved with this one, but I don't have the cites to back the allegation up. Setting that aside, there's going to be pros and cons with this and any other car on the road, and this article just isn't up to par. So here's a proposal on something akin to rules for a layout on this and any other article about cars and trucks.
:1. Describe the car itself. This needs to be a physical description of the car, including company making it; where it's made; years of manufacture; performance packages; wheelbase; powertrains; prices; MPG's; speed, and so on. Since the Volt is electric, how many batteries does it have? Does it have a generator engine? How far can it go on a charge?
:2. Describe the pros and cons of the vehicle; describe why people like it, and why others don't. Is the car very good, or is it just another lemon? For citations, limit yourself to using official press releases from the automakers (Chevy in this case); reputable publications (''Car and Driver'', ''Motor Trend'', ''Consumer Reports'', etc). If you use a blog citation, make sure that the writer direct connections to the above publications or is a respected member of the auto community (i.e. Chip Foose, Kammie Edelbrock, Jeff Gordon, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:3. As to the politics involving the Chevy Volt, place it within a separate sub-topic heading. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::I concur. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:52, 31 January 2014 (EST)
*I take I've been outvoted. Is Conservapedia is ready for conservative-bashing energy articles? I guess we will find out. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 12:10, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:Try not to see it as bashing conservative ideals, think of it as making factual and accurate articles that don’t make conservatives look miss-informed.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 12:51, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::Like you're here to make conservatives look more informed. Aren't we "[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1073053&oldid=1073052 lunatic fringe climate deniers]"? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:29, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:::If someone parrots the climate change rants of Monckton and Limbaugh? Then yeah, I’d say they subscribe to the lunatic fringe. Not all conservatives hold such views. The original version of this article made a bunch of literally stupid claims. The Volt is a fashion accessory, it is subsidized with factory rebates, emits harmful radiation, likely to electrocute passengers in a crash, the engine is not hooked up to the wheels, liberals and homosexuals have limited knowledge of automobiles, etc. If a person took the earlier versions of this article as gospel, they’d look rather silly regurgitating their ''facts'' to a knowledgeable Volt owner. Looks like I’m actually trying to make conservatives ''look more informed''.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 00:36, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::So Limbaugh and Fox News are the lunatic fringe, but of course you don't have you anything against the conservatives who agree with you. Who would they be, anyway? If I wanted to know what mainstream conservative opinion was on a given issue, I'd check ''The American Spectator'' ("[http://spectator.org/articles/35953/volt-sleeps-fishes Volt sleeps with the fishes]"), ''The Weekly Standard'' ("[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chevy-volt-still-not-selling_581956.html Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling]"), ''National Review'' ("[http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/242092/gm-volt-electric-lemon-greg-pollowitz The GM Volt Is an ‘Electric Lemon’]"), or ''Human Events'' ("[http://www.humanevents.com/2012/01/07/obama-blew-more-money-on-chevy-volt-than-entire-gdp-of-djibouti/ Obama blew more money on the Chevy Volt than entire GDP of Djibouti]"). These are all to the right of Fox News, so I assume they'd be extradoubleplus lunatic in your book. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:41, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/ leading climate scientists all], are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::::If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was ''also'' a mechanical engineer.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::::Am to understand that 99 percent of scientists agree with you, and only 1 percent agree with me? There was a survey a while back that found that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the Earth is warmer now than it was a century ago. But of course I don't dispute that, and neither does Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:This car's primary notability is as a money pit. It's GM's attempt to follow California's idiotic regulations and appease the environmentalists. Sales are insignificant. The politics of this issue belongs in the lead section. We are not ''Consumer Reports''. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
::Appease is probably the wrong word - it's them targeting a type of consumer that looks to purchase "environmentally friendlier" cars. The politics of a global warming debate do not belong on a car page, no. Norman's correct. We might not be Consumer Reports, but we also try not to be idiots.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)
:::I have already refuted this argument more than once. GM is selling only 100-to-200 vehicles a month. They'd have to sell something like 5,000 vehicles a month to justify their development costs. Please check the articles I link to above. Since GM went to court to try to avoid California's ZEV regulation, I assume that they were already aware that there was no demand even before they decided to go ahead with the project. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:37, 2 February 2014 (EST)
::::So it's for positive publicity? And what's wrong with that business model? And do you have another source confirming it? And you mentioning that the sales numbers are low isn't actually refuting any argument I made. It's just stating the fact that there are low sales. And how does going to court over regulation indicate knowledge of the future? They knew how successful marketing and an ad campaign could be because they were in a California court? Fascinating.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 07:50, 2 February 2014 (EST)

==Further Reading==
The Conservative News and Views article is a travesty of journalism filled with numerous faults and should not be featured under ''Further reading''.

1. General Motors went into bankruptcy on June 1 2009 and emerged on 10 July 2009. A total of forty days. How this article could even imply otherwise is rather mystifying. No other entity other than the U.S. government stepped forward to assist GM, without reorganization funded by the feds; even Ford would have shut their doors.
http://www.motorsliquidationdocket.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11auto.html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shut-without-auto-bailouts-rattner-says.html

2. GM received a government bailout that prevented the company from being broken up and terminating all their employees. As of 2012, GM employs 77,000 Americans, less than their heyday but still a lot more than zero, which is what they would have employed had the auto maker been allowed to break up. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-workers.html

3. ''...energy-efficient vehicles, otherwise known as The Volt''. This statement makes no sense, the Chevy Volt is not the only energy-efficient vehicle produced by GM.

4. The sales figures are also incorrect. There were 326 sold in 2010; 7671 sold in 2011; 23,461 in 2012 and 23,094 in 2013.
http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/

This embarrassment of an article should not be linked on Conservapedia. It gets almost nothing right and the people who read and believe the alleged facts will be sorely miss-informed.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 11:46, 31 January 2014 (EST)

==Only the Facts Please==
Unreferenced assertions concerning the general public and environmentalists have been inserted into an otherwise factual article. Could references please be provided?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:12, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-02T05:56:47Z

Iduan: more spacing fixes

[[File:2012 Chevy Volt.jpg|right|250px]]
The '''Chevy Volt''' is a hybrid car produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period.<ref>"[http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/specs/trims.html 2014 Volt Models & Specs]"</ref> The 149 HP electric motor can propel the vehicle to 101 mph and after the 16 kWh battery is depleted the gasoline engine switches on to provide energy for the motor and can couple itself to the wheels directly when above 70 mph.<ref>"[http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/ First Test: 2011 Chevrolet Volt]", ''Motor Trend'', Dec. 2010.</ref> The Volt, like any automobile with a 16 kWh battery or larger, is eligible for a $7,500 tax rebate when purchased.<ref>http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-(IRC-30-and-IRC-30D)</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==
From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref> GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology.<ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>

==Sales==
Volt sales started slow with only 326 sold in 2010. 2011 saw a modest increase in monthly sales with a yearly total of 7671. A rapid increase happened in 2012 with 23,461 sold though 2013 sales have leveled off at 23,094.<ref>http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/</ref><ref>http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/</ref> Sales were strongest in California, approximately 50% of all sales.<ref>http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082121_predicting-chevy-volt-sales-is-california-inventory-the-key</ref>

Given the weak sales, GM may never recoup the car's $1.2 billion development costs,<ref>"[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs GM's losses up to $49,000 on each Volt]", Reuters, 10 Sep 2012.</ref> a claim GM vehemently denies.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/gm-fights-report-chevy-volts-rolling-away-49-173205445.html</ref>

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2s5raBXj6 Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/how-the-2011-chevrolet-volt-works.html How the 2011 Chevrolet Volt Works]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/ Chevrolet Volt Review ]
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Cars]]

Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-02T05:53:40Z

Iduan: fix spacing. let's use paragraphs people. also fix headline spacing

[[File:2012 Chevy Volt.jpg|right|250px]]
The '''Chevy Volt''' is a hybrid car produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period.<ref>"[http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/specs/trims.html 2014 Volt Models & Specs]"</ref> The 149 HP electric motor can propel the vehicle to 101 mph and after the 16 kWh battery is depleted the gasoline engine switches on to provide energy for the motor and can couple itself to the wheels directly when above 70 mph.<ref>"[http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/ First Test: 2011 Chevrolet Volt]", ''Motor Trend'', Dec. 2010.</ref> The Volt, like any automobile with a 16 kWh battery or larger, is eligible for a $7,500 tax rebate when purchased.<ref>http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-(IRC-30-and-IRC-30D)</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==
From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref> GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology.<ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>

==Sales==
Volt sales started slow with only 326 sold in 2010. 2011 saw a modest increase in monthly sales with a yearly total of 7671. A rapid increase happened in 2012 with 23,461 sold though 2013 sales have leveled off at 23,094.<ref>http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/</ref> <ref>http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/</ref> Sales were strongest in California, approximately 50% of all sales <ref>http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082121_predicting-chevy-volt-sales-is-california-inventory-the-key</ref>

Given the weak sales, GM may never recoup the car's $1.2 billion development costs,<ref>"[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs GM's losses up to $49,000 on each Volt]", Reuters, 10 Sep 2012.</ref> a claim GM vehemently denies. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/gm-fights-report-chevy-volts-rolling-away-49-173205445.html</ref>

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2s5raBXj6 Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/how-the-2011-chevrolet-volt-works.html How the 2011 Chevrolet Volt Works]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/ Chevrolet Volt Review ]
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Cars]]

Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-02T05:51:01Z

Iduan: If you don't have citations don't edit the article; either you're being lazy or you're wrong. No one cares about a random's independent analysis.

[[File:2012 Chevy Volt.jpg|right|250px]]
The '''Chevy Volt''' is a hybrid car produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period.<ref>"[http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/specs/trims.html 2014 Volt Models & Specs]"</ref> The 149 HP electric motor can propel the vehicle to 101 mph and after the 16 kWh battery is depleted the gasoline engine switches on to provide energy for the motor and can couple itself to the wheels directly when above 70 mph.<ref>"[http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/ First Test: 2011 Chevrolet Volt]", ''Motor Trend'', Dec. 2010.</ref> The Volt, like any automobile with a 16 kWh battery or larger, is eligible for a $7,500 tax rebate when purchased.<ref>http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-(IRC-30-and-IRC-30D)</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==

From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref> GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology.<ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>

==Sales==
Volt sales started slow with only 326 sold in 2010. 2011 saw a modest increase in monthly sales with a yearly total of 7671. A rapid increase happened in 2012 with 23,461 sold though 2013 sales have leveled off at 23,094.
<ref>http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/</ref> <ref>http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/</ref>

Sales were strongest in California, approximately 50% of all sales <ref>http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082121_predicting-chevy-volt-sales-is-california-inventory-the-key</ref>

With weak sales, GM may never recoup the car's $1.2 billion development costs,<ref>"[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs GM's losses up to $49,000 on each Volt]", Reuters, 10 Sep 2012.</ref> a claim GM vehemently denies. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/gm-fights-report-chevy-volts-rolling-away-49-173205445.html</ref>

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.
<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2s5raBXj6 Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/how-the-2011-chevrolet-volt-works.html How the 2011 Chevrolet Volt Works]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/ Chevrolet Volt Review ]
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

<references/>
[[Category: Cars]]

Talk:Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-02T05:46:29Z

Iduan: we might not be consumer reports, but we also try not to be idiots

== Fact tags. ==

Those claims strike me as controversial. If they're so well-known, documenting them should not be a challenge. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 20:17, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:I've provided you with references. In the future I'd stick to topics that you have some knowledge about. The fact that you didn't know what a supercar was shows that you have little if any knowledge about the automotive world. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 13:57, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::Your reference said nothing about the electrocution claim and stated clearly that there was as yet no scientifically proven link between hybrid vehicles and health risks. I've edited the article to reflect that. And I know what a "supercar" is. I just think it's a silly word. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:00, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::: ''"An electric shock caused by an accident-damaged EV could kill an imprudent approacher."'' [http://www.cars21.com/article.view.php?Id=344]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:20, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::::Great. Put it in the article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:28, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

There are many incorrect and unsupported factoids in this article.

1. All cars emit harmful radiation; it is a matter of how much. It is also important to remember AC EMF is much more harmful than DC EMF based on the simple and basic principle that AC current induces electric current in conductors, and also people, while DC generally does not. The Volt’s large DC battery under the driver and passengers is not inducing any current through the body of the car or the passengers. AC current is used by the Volt, like all cars, primarily under the hood.
http://www.lessemf.com/pamphlet.html

2. The engine can couple itself to the drive train under certain circumstances to improve efficiency.
Once the Volt’s battery is depleted, the engine fires up and clutches to the generator to produce the power required to drive the car. Above 70 mph, when the generator couples to the ring gear, the engine gets a more efficient direct mechanical connection to the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2PXuPwSce

3. As for the car’s alleged high inefficiency, the Volt is rated at 37 mpg while using the gasoline engine. Not bad for a 3700 lb car, which by the way does have a drive shaft.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/11/volt-20101124.html

4. The Volt is subsidized, but not through factory rebates. Someone who purchases, not a leases, can qualify for a tax rebate of up to $7500.00 using form IRS 8936. If someone buys a Volt and their tax is under $7500.00 they will not receive the full rebate.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf

5. I would like to see the math concerning the alleged $100,000+ it is costing GM to produce the Volt. Every new car model is subject to development costs. Wonder what the development of the new Chevy Corvette cost? Corvettes are out sold by Volts yet it is considered to be a very successful car.

6. Based on what has been written in this article, it seems to me the person(s) know rather little about automobiles. And remember, the Volt has the highest rate of owner satisfaction. Not bad, eh?
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/

7. I’d like to see this article conform to the Conservapedia Commandments. i.e. true and verifiable, cite sources, etc. The liberal/homosexual thing comes to mind, sounds like opinion, not fact.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 21:35, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:The fact that [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car] is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily [http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/ to meet a California regulation]. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)
:::Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)
::::Yes, Reuters and the WSJ provide news. Yet Reuters didn’t show their math and even admitted the limitations of their so-called conclusions. Your WSJ reference is dated, maybe try to obtain something more recent?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:35, 30 January 2014 (EST)

==Rules proposal==
I think Norman brought up some valid points about this particular vehicle, as well as Peter. I think green energy politics may be involved with this one, but I don't have the cites to back the allegation up. Setting that aside, there's going to be pros and cons with this and any other car on the road, and this article just isn't up to par. So here's a proposal on something akin to rules for a layout on this and any other article about cars and trucks.
:1. Describe the car itself. This needs to be a physical description of the car, including company making it; where it's made; years of manufacture; performance packages; wheelbase; powertrains; prices; MPG's; speed, and so on. Since the Volt is electric, how many batteries does it have? Does it have a generator engine? How far can it go on a charge?
:2. Describe the pros and cons of the vehicle; describe why people like it, and why others don't. Is the car very good, or is it just another lemon? For citations, limit yourself to using official press releases from the automakers (Chevy in this case); reputable publications (''Car and Driver'', ''Motor Trend'', ''Consumer Reports'', etc). If you use a blog citation, make sure that the writer direct connections to the above publications or is a respected member of the auto community (i.e. Chip Foose, Kammie Edelbrock, Jeff Gordon, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:3. As to the politics involving the Chevy Volt, place it within a separate sub-topic heading. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::I concur. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:52, 31 January 2014 (EST)
*I take I've been outvoted. Is Conservapedia is ready for conservative-bashing energy articles? I guess we will find out. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 12:10, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:Try not to see it as bashing conservative ideals, think of it as making factual and accurate articles that don’t make conservatives look miss-informed.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 12:51, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::Like you're here to make conservatives look more informed. Aren't we "[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1073053&oldid=1073052 lunatic fringe climate deniers]"? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:29, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:::If someone parrots the climate change rants of Monckton and Limbaugh? Then yeah, I’d say they subscribe to the lunatic fringe. Not all conservatives hold such views. The original version of this article made a bunch of literally stupid claims. The Volt is a fashion accessory, it is subsidized with factory rebates, emits harmful radiation, likely to electrocute passengers in a crash, the engine is not hooked up to the wheels, liberals and homosexuals have limited knowledge of automobiles, etc. If a person took the earlier versions of this article as gospel, they’d look rather silly regurgitating their ''facts'' to a knowledgeable Volt owner. Looks like I’m actually trying to make conservatives ''look more informed''.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 00:36, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::So Limbaugh and Fox News are the lunatic fringe, but of course you don't have you anything against the conservatives who agree with you. Who would they be, anyway? If I wanted to know what mainstream conservative opinion was on a given issue, I'd check ''The American Spectator'' ("[http://spectator.org/articles/35953/volt-sleeps-fishes Volt sleeps with the fishes]"), ''The Weekly Standard'' ("[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chevy-volt-still-not-selling_581956.html Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling]"), ''National Review'' ("[http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/242092/gm-volt-electric-lemon-greg-pollowitz The GM Volt Is an ‘Electric Lemon’]"), or ''Human Events'' ("[http://www.humanevents.com/2012/01/07/obama-blew-more-money-on-chevy-volt-than-entire-gdp-of-djibouti/ Obama blew more money on the Chevy Volt than entire GDP of Djibouti]"). These are all to the right of Fox News, so I assume they'd be extradoubleplus lunatic in your book. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:41, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/ leading climate scientists all], are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::::If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was ''also'' a mechanical engineer.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::::Am to understand that 99 percent of scientists agree with you, and only 1 percent agree with me? There was a survey a while back that found that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the Earth is warmer now than it was a century ago. But of course I don't dispute that, and neither does Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:This car's primary notability is as a money pit. It's GM's attempt to follow California's idiotic regulations and appease the environmentalists. Sales are insignificant. The politics of this issue belongs in the lead section. We are not ''Consumer Reports''. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
::Appease is probably the wrong word - it's them targeting a type of consumer that looks to purchase "environmentally friendlier" cars. The politics of a global warming debate do not belong on a car page, no. Norman's correct. We might not be Consumer Reports, but we also try not to be idiots.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)

==Further Reading==
The Conservative News and Views article is a travesty of journalism filled with numerous faults and should not be featured under ''Further reading''.

1. General Motors went into bankruptcy on June 1 2009 and emerged on 10 July 2009. A total of forty days. How this article could even imply otherwise is rather mystifying. No other entity other than the U.S. government stepped forward to assist GM, without reorganization funded by the feds; even Ford would have shut their doors.
http://www.motorsliquidationdocket.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11auto.html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shut-without-auto-bailouts-rattner-says.html

2. GM received a government bailout that prevented the company from being broken up and terminating all their employees. As of 2012, GM employs 77,000 Americans, less than their heyday but still a lot more than zero, which is what they would have employed had the auto maker been allowed to break up. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-workers.html

3. ''...energy-efficient vehicles, otherwise known as The Volt''. This statement makes no sense, the Chevy Volt is not the only energy-efficient vehicle produced by GM.

4. The sales figures are also incorrect. There were 326 sold in 2010; 7671 sold in 2011; 23,461 in 2012 and 23,094 in 2013.
http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/

This embarrassment of an article should not be linked on Conservapedia. It gets almost nothing right and the people who read and believe the alleged facts will be sorely miss-informed.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 11:46, 31 January 2014 (EST)

==Only the Facts Please==
Unreferenced assertions concerning the general public and environmentalists have been inserted into an otherwise factual article. Could references please be provided?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:12, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-01T18:31:30Z

Iduan: no the place for this debate

== Fact tags. ==

Those claims strike me as controversial. If they're so well-known, documenting them should not be a challenge. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 20:17, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:I've provided you with references. In the future I'd stick to topics that you have some knowledge about. The fact that you didn't know what a supercar was shows that you have little if any knowledge about the automotive world. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 13:57, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::Your reference said nothing about the electrocution claim and stated clearly that there was as yet no scientifically proven link between hybrid vehicles and health risks. I've edited the article to reflect that. And I know what a "supercar" is. I just think it's a silly word. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:00, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::: ''"An electric shock caused by an accident-damaged EV could kill an imprudent approacher."'' [http://www.cars21.com/article.view.php?Id=344]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:20, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::::Great. Put it in the article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:28, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

There are many incorrect and unsupported factoids in this article.

1. All cars emit harmful radiation; it is a matter of how much. It is also important to remember AC EMF is much more harmful than DC EMF based on the simple and basic principle that AC current induces electric current in conductors, and also people, while DC generally does not. The Volt’s large DC battery under the driver and passengers is not inducing any current through the body of the car or the passengers. AC current is used by the Volt, like all cars, primarily under the hood.
http://www.lessemf.com/pamphlet.html

2. The engine can couple itself to the drive train under certain circumstances to improve efficiency.
Once the Volt’s battery is depleted, the engine fires up and clutches to the generator to produce the power required to drive the car. Above 70 mph, when the generator couples to the ring gear, the engine gets a more efficient direct mechanical connection to the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2PXuPwSce

3. As for the car’s alleged high inefficiency, the Volt is rated at 37 mpg while using the gasoline engine. Not bad for a 3700 lb car, which by the way does have a drive shaft.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/11/volt-20101124.html

4. The Volt is subsidized, but not through factory rebates. Someone who purchases, not a leases, can qualify for a tax rebate of up to $7500.00 using form IRS 8936. If someone buys a Volt and their tax is under $7500.00 they will not receive the full rebate.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf

5. I would like to see the math concerning the alleged $100,000+ it is costing GM to produce the Volt. Every new car model is subject to development costs. Wonder what the development of the new Chevy Corvette cost? Corvettes are out sold by Volts yet it is considered to be a very successful car.

6. Based on what has been written in this article, it seems to me the person(s) know rather little about automobiles. And remember, the Volt has the highest rate of owner satisfaction. Not bad, eh?
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/

7. I’d like to see this article conform to the Conservapedia Commandments. i.e. true and verifiable, cite sources, etc. The liberal/homosexual thing comes to mind, sounds like opinion, not fact.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 21:35, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:The fact that [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car] is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily [http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/ to meet a California regulation]. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)
:::Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)
::::Yes, Reuters and the WSJ provide news. Yet Reuters didn’t show their math and even admitted the limitations of their so-called conclusions. Your WSJ reference is dated, maybe try to obtain something more recent?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:35, 30 January 2014 (EST)

==Rules proposal==
I think Norman brought up some valid points about this particular vehicle, as well as Peter. I think green energy politics may be involved with this one, but I don't have the cites to back the allegation up. Setting that aside, there's going to be pros and cons with this and any other car on the road, and this article just isn't up to par. So here's a proposal on something akin to rules for a layout on this and any other article about cars and trucks.
:1. Describe the car itself. This needs to be a physical description of the car, including company making it; where it's made; years of manufacture; performance packages; wheelbase; powertrains; prices; MPG's; speed, and so on. Since the Volt is electric, how many batteries does it have? Does it have a generator engine? How far can it go on a charge?
:2. Describe the pros and cons of the vehicle; describe why people like it, and why others don't. Is the car very good, or is it just another lemon? For citations, limit yourself to using official press releases from the automakers (Chevy in this case); reputable publications (''Car and Driver'', ''Motor Trend'', ''Consumer Reports'', etc). If you use a blog citation, make sure that the writer direct connections to the above publications or is a respected member of the auto community (i.e. Chip Foose, Kammie Edelbrock, Jeff Gordon, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:3. As to the politics involving the Chevy Volt, place it within a separate sub-topic heading. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::I concur. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:52, 31 January 2014 (EST)
*I take I've been outvoted. Is Conservapedia is ready for conservative-bashing energy articles? I guess we will find out. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 12:10, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:Try not to see it as bashing conservative ideals, think of it as making factual and accurate articles that don’t make conservatives look miss-informed.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 12:51, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::Like you're here to make conservatives look more informed. Aren't we "[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1073053&oldid=1073052 lunatic fringe climate deniers]"? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:29, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:::If someone parrots the climate change rants of Monckton and Limbaugh? Then yeah, I’d say they subscribe to the lunatic fringe. Not all conservatives hold such views. The original version of this article made a bunch of literally stupid claims. The Volt is a fashion accessory, it is subsidized with factory rebates, emits harmful radiation, likely to electrocute passengers in a crash, the engine is not hooked up to the wheels, liberals and homosexuals have limited knowledge of automobiles, etc. If a person took the earlier versions of this article as gospel, they’d look rather silly regurgitating their ''facts'' to a knowledgeable Volt owner. Looks like I’m actually trying to make conservatives ''look more informed''.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 00:36, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::So Limbaugh and Fox News are the lunatic fringe, but of course you don't have you anything against the conservatives who agree with you. Who would they be, anyway? If I wanted to know what mainstream conservative opinion was on a given issue, I'd check ''The American Spectator'' ("[http://spectator.org/articles/35953/volt-sleeps-fishes Volt sleeps with the fishes]"), ''The Weekly Standard'' ("[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chevy-volt-still-not-selling_581956.html Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling]"), ''National Review'' ("[http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/242092/gm-volt-electric-lemon-greg-pollowitz The GM Volt Is an ‘Electric Lemon’]"), or ''Human Events'' ("[http://www.humanevents.com/2012/01/07/obama-blew-more-money-on-chevy-volt-than-entire-gdp-of-djibouti/ Obama blew more money on the Chevy Volt than entire GDP of Djibouti]"). These are all to the right of Fox News, so I assume they'd be extradoubleplus lunatic in your book. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:41, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/ leading climate scientists all], are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::::If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was ''also'' a mechanical engineer.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)
I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)

==Further Reading==
The Conservative News and Views article is a travesty of journalism filled with numerous faults and should not be featured under ''Further reading''.

1. General Motors went into bankruptcy on June 1 2009 and emerged on 10 July 2009. A total of forty days. How this article could even imply otherwise is rather mystifying. No other entity other than the U.S. government stepped forward to assist GM, without reorganization funded by the feds; even Ford would have shut their doors.
http://www.motorsliquidationdocket.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11auto.html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shut-without-auto-bailouts-rattner-says.html

2. GM received a government bailout that prevented the company from being broken up and terminating all their employees. As of 2012, GM employs 77,000 Americans, less than their heyday but still a lot more than zero, which is what they would have employed had the auto maker been allowed to break up. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-workers.html

3. ''...energy-efficient vehicles, otherwise known as The Volt''. This statement makes no sense, the Chevy Volt is not the only energy-efficient vehicle produced by GM.

4. The sales figures are also incorrect. There were 326 sold in 2010; 7671 sold in 2011; 23,461 in 2012 and 23,094 in 2013.
http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/

This embarrassment of an article should not be linked on Conservapedia. It gets almost nothing right and the people who read and believe the alleged facts will be sorely miss-informed.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 11:46, 31 January 2014 (EST)

Roger Stone

2013-12-30T16:23:35Z

Iduan: revert markman vandalism (also correct --> Libertarian)

'''Roger Stone''' is a [[Libertarian]] [[United States|American]] campaign consultant and lobbyist. Nearly all of his political work is on behalf of [[Republicans]]. In the 2008 US [[Presidential election]], Stone launched a 527 political organization called Citizens United Not Timid to educate the public about "what [[Hillary Clinton]] really is".

{{DEFAULTSORT:Stone, Roger}}

[[Category:Political Lobbyists]]
[[Category:Political Advisors]]

Paul Wolfowitz

2013-12-30T16:17:39Z

Iduan: revert markman vandalism

[[Image:89698iukhbn.jpg|right|thumb|Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz briefs reporters at the [[The_Pentagon|Pentagon]] about the on-going campaign against the [[al Qaeda]] terrorist organization and the military capability of [[Taliban]] regime in [[Afghanistan]].
]]
'''Paul Dundes Wolfowitz''' (b. December 22, 1943) is a American academic, [[neoconservative]] scholar and political figure; In the early 1970s, Paul Wolfowitz served as an aide to [[Democratic Party]] Senator [[Henry Jackson|Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson]]; from 1986 to 1989, he served as ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia; then as undersecretary of Defense under [[Ronald Reagan]]; from 2001 to 2005, he served as the Deputy Secretary of Defense under [[George W. Bush]] where he was one of the main architects of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration and of the [[Iraq War]]; from 2005 to June 2007, he served as the President of the [[World Bank]]. He is currently a visiting scholar at the [[American Enterprise Institute]].<ref>http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.126,filter.all/scholar.asp</ref> Wolfowitz described himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican".

==Education==
Paul Wolfowitz's father Jacob Wolfowitz, was a Professor of Mathematics at Cornell University. Paul Wolfowitz has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Cornell University; a Master's degree and Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/leadership/bio_466.html</ref> From 1994-2001, Paul Wolfowitz served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of The [[Johns Hopkins University]].<ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/EXTOFFICEPRESIDENT/0,,contentMDK:20519590~menuPK:64260190~pagePK:51174171~piPK:64258873~theSitePK:1014541,00.html Paul Wolfowitz's biography at World Banks site]</ref> [[Lewis "Scooter" Libby]] was one of his students when Wolfowitz served as a professor of Political Science at Yale University.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1449631,00.html</ref>

Eric Schmitt described Paul Wolfowitz as a "soft-spoken former aspiring-mathematician-turned-policymaker … [whose] world views … were forged by family history and in the halls of academia rather than in the jungles of Vietnam or the corridors of Congress … [His father] … escaped Poland after World War I. The rest of his father's family perished in the [[Holocaust]]." David Dudley described Wolfowitz as "liv[ing] in a world haunted by atrocities" and deeply affecting his son's personal and intellectual development. Speaking directly of the influence of the Holocaust on his own world-views, Wolfowitz said: "That sense of what happened in Europe in World War II has shaped a lot of my views … It's a very bad thing when people exterminate other people, and people persecute minorities. It doesn't mean you can prevent every such incident in the world, but it's also a mistake to dismiss that sort of concern as merely humanitarian and not related to real interest."

In August 1963, Paul Wolfowitz joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom led by [[Martin Luther King, Jr]].

==Tenure As President Of The World Bank==
Other nations have been critical of Wolfowitz, and the criticisms intensified to calls for his ouster upon disclosure that in April of 2007 he allegedly obtained a large pay raise and promotion for his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a former bank official.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/MNGHNP8M941.DTL</ref> He resigned on May 17, 2007 (effective June 30, 2007), as a result of an investigation by the World Bank Group's board of executive directors, which accepted his resignation, "ending a protracted and tumultuous battle over his stewardship, sparked by a promotion he arranged for his companion."<ref name=WBGS2> [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21339650~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html "Statements of Executive Directors and President Wolfowitz"], ''[[World Bank Group]]'', May 17, 2007, accessed May 17, 2007.</ref><ref name=JonesUK>Matthew Jones, [http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKSP8524620070518 "Wolfowitz Exit Seen Clearing Way for Progress"], ''[[Reuters]]'' (UK), May 18, 2007, accessed May 18, 2007. </ref>

==Books==
[[Image:Wolfie22.jpg|right|thumb]]
Lewis D. Solomon, Van Vleck Professor of Law at George Washington University, has recently published a biography of Paul Wolfowitz titled ''Paul D. Wolfowitz: Visionary Intellectual, Policymaker, and Strategist''<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Wolfowitz-Intellectual-Policymaker-Strategist/dp/0275995879</ref>.

==Interviews==
*[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7037799_ITM Bush's Brain Trust] by Sam Tanenhaus, ''Vanity Fair'', July 2003.
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7306587/site/newsweek/ 'I'm Not a Unilateralist': Paul Wolfowitz Wants the World to Understand Him] by Lally Weymouth, ''Newsweek'', April 4, 2005.

==See Also==
*[http://www.slate.com/id/2115170/ That Bleeding Heart Wolfowitz] by [[Christopher Hitchens]], ''Slate'', March 22, 2005.
*[http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Paul_Wolfowitz.php Paul Wolfowitz's political donations] by ''Newsmeat''.
*[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21319422~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html Communication from the Executive Directors of the World Bank Group], ''World Bank Group'', May 1, 2007.
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18628587/site/newsweek/ With the Best of Intentions] by Michael Hirsh, ''Newsweek'', May 21, 2007.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Wolfowitz, Paul}}

[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:United States Ambassadors]]
[[Category:Political Scientists]]
[[category:Neoconservative]]
[[category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Afghanistan War]]

Jeff Flake

2013-12-30T16:15:19Z

Iduan: template

{{Officeholder
|name=Jeff Flake
|image=JeffFlake.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Cheryl Flake
|religion=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Arizona
|terms=January 3, 2013 -
|preceded=[[Jon Kyl]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Arizona
|district=6th
|terms=January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2013
|preceded=[[J. D. Hayworth]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[David Schweikert]]
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Arizona
|district=1st
|terms=January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003
|preceded=[[Matt Salmon]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Rick Renzi]]
}}
}}
'''Jeff Flake''' is a [[Republican]] [[United States Senator ]] from [[Arizona]], winning election to the Senate in 2012, and former [[United States Representative]]. He is a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ([[Mormon]]s). He has one of the most consistently fiscally [[conservative]] voting records of any Congressman, being one of only eight Representatives to receive a 100% rating from the [[American Conservative Union]] in 2006.<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20070</ref> He is especially outspoken regarding the burden of [[earmark | earmarks]] on the taxpaying public. However, he has broken from many in his party on the issue of the [[Iraq War]]. In 2012, Jeff Flake was elected to the Senate seat of [[Jon Kyl]].

He should still be considered a [[RINO]] though due his support for homosexuals serving in the military and giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.<ref>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-jeff-flake-arizonas-next-john-mccain/</ref>

Democrats have asked the [[FBI]] and the [[Justice Department]] to review Flake's campaign activities because voters in Arizona have received [[robocall]]s directing voters to the wrong polling locations.<ref>{{cite news|title=Democrats seek Rep. Flake probe|first=Sean|last=Sullivan|work=Washington Post|page=A4|date=November 6, 2012}}</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Flake, Jeff}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:112th United States Congress]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Arizona]]
[[Category:Rino backers]]
[[Category:Mormons]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Donald Rumsfeld

2013-12-30T16:09:48Z

Iduan: double up for consistency in how we present this (see Grover Cleveland)

{{Officeholder
|name=Donald Rumsfeld
|image=ASecDefRumsfeld01.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Joyce H. Pierson
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=Defense
|state=United States
|number=21st
|deputy=n
|president=[[George W. Bush]]
|terms=January 20, 2001 – December 18, 2006
|preceded=[[William Cohen]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Robert Gates]]
}}
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=Defense
|state=United States
|number=13th
|deputy=n
|president=[[Gerald Ford]]
|terms=November 20, 1975 – January 20, 1977
|preceded=[[James Schlesinger]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Harold Brown]]
}}
}}
'''Donald Henry Rumsfeld''' (b. July 9, 1932) was the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] first under President [[Gerald Ford]] from 1975 to 1977 and second under [[George W. Bush]] from 2001 to 2006.

In his second term as Secretary, Rumsfeld showed an intense, unwavering commitment to military transformation--his vision of a leaner, more lethal Department of Defense. He performed brilliantly for the press and won over public opinion. However inside the Pentagon, he ran roughshod over the most experienced generals and admirals, who resented his resistance to professional advice. After [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9-11]], he directed the [[Afghanistan War|war in Afghanistan]], which seemingly vindicated this concept of transformation. While the prospect of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war in Iraq]] in 2003 promised a wider proving ground for it, the unexpected counterinsurgency campaign that followed undermined Rumsfeld's transformation and highlighted his failures in planning and his resistance to changing policies. In late 2006, Bush fired Rumsfeld, replacing him with [[Robert Gates]], who changed strategies and commanders, thus defeating the insurgency and leading the way to victory in Iraq.
==Career==
Born in Chicago, Donald Rumsfeld received his bachelor's degree in 1954 from [[Princeton University]], where he captained the wrestling team. After serving three years (1954–57) in the Navy as an aviator, he worked as a congressional aide in Washington, and as an investment banker in Chicago. In 1962 he won election as a Republican to the [[United States House of Representatives]] from the North Shore district of Illinois; he was reelected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

==Nixon and Ford==
Rumsfeld gave up his safe congressional seat the following year to serve at the Office of Economic Opportunity and at the White House in the administration of President [[Richard Nixon]]. From 1973 to 1974 Rumsfeld was in Brussels, Belgium, as U.S. ambassador to the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO).

In August 1974, after Nixon resigned, Rumsfeld was summoned back to Washington to head President Ford's transition team. He then served as Ford's chief of staff until nominated and confirmed as Secretary of Defense. While at the Department of Defense he campaigned vigorously for increased defense spending, took an active role in Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the [[Soviet Union]], and made his own test flight in an early version of the B-1 bomber.
==Business==
After Ford lost the 1976 presidential election, Rumsfeld returned to the private sector, applying his tough-minded management style as chief executive officer, president, and chairman of the G. D. Searle pharmaceutical firm and in subsequent corporate assignments. He continued to speak out on defense issues and was a voice on several prestigious national commissions.
==Defense==
When George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, his transition manager, Vice-President-elect [[Dick Cheney]], who had been Rumsfeld's protégé in both the Nixon and Ford administrations, recruited Rumsfeld to serve a second term as defense secretary.

Quickly confirmed by the Senate, Rumsfeld took office in January of 2001. During his first seven months on the job, he sought, amid opposition, to restructure the military to meet the needs of the post-[[Cold War]] era. After [[al-Qaeda]] terrorists attacked the U.S. on [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11]], using hijacked aircraft to strike Defense Department headquarters at the Pentagon and to destroy the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld was an outspoken champion of the Bush Administration's [[War on Terror]]. He oversaw the [[Afghanistan War|defeat]] of the [[Taliban]] regime in [[Afghanistan]], which had aided al-Qaeda, and he presided over the largest military buildup since the early 1980s, disarming some media skeptics with his confidence and candor.
==Iraq==
Once the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war]] with the regime of dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] began, the rapid success of U.S.-led forces in ousting Saddam appeared to vindicate Rumsfeld's insistence on sophisticated weaponry, strategic flexibility, and preemptive action. However, after major combat operations ended, and U.S. liberation forces began to face daily attacks from Saddam supporters and other terrorists, critics charged that Rumsfeld had underestimated the problems involved. The criticism intensified in April 2004, with the release of photographs providing evidence of pranks carried out on Iraqi terrorist prisoners by a handful of U.S. military personnel at Baghdad's [[Abu Ghraib prison]] during the fall of 2003. Rumsfeld acknowledged in early 2005 that he had twice offered to resign after the Abu Ghraib revelations, but that President Bush had rejected the offers.

For most of 2005 and 2006, President Bush continued to back Rumsfeld but his strategy in Iraq had failed and he was a drag on the GOP. Finally, on November 8, 2006, the day after an election in which Democrats had captured control of Congress, Bush announced that Rumsfeld would step down; named to replace him was [[Robert Gates]], a conservative who had headed the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] during the presidency of [[George H. W. Bush]].

==Resignation==
Rumsfeld resigned on 18 December 2006 after Democrats won the House and Senate by campaigning against the war and Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq. A number of retired generals, including [[George Soros]] associated Gen. [[Wesley Clark|Clark]], had called for his resignation.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?_r=1</ref>

When he began his first term as defense secretary, he was the youngest person in U.S. history to hold that position; when he left office at the end of his second term, he was the oldest.

==Positions on social issues==

While has not expressed support for same-sex "marriage", he has so far failed to condemn it, merely saying that he doesn't know whether or not he supports phony homosexual marriages.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/22/rumseld-suggests-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-polygamy/</ref> He supports homosexuals serving in the military.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/rumsfeld-time-has-come-to-allow-gays-to-serve-openly/</ref> While he hasn't expressed support for abortion, he has also failed to condemn it as so far his stance on the subject is unknown.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Donald_Rumsfeld_Abortion.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
* Graham, Bradley. ''By His Own Rules'' (2009), 803 pp. the best of the journalistic biographies

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rumsfeld, Donald}}
[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Condoleezza Rice

2013-12-30T16:09:42Z

Iduan: revert markman vandalism

{{Officeholder
|name=Condoleezza Rice
|image=Bncjcfjuh.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=State
|state=United States
|number=66th
|deputy=(y or n)
|president=[[George W. Bush]]
|terms=January 26, 2005 – January 20, 2009
|preceded=[[Colin Powell]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
}}
}}
'''Condoleezza Rice''' was the 66th [[United States Secretary of State]], and the first [[African-American]] woman to hold the post. Prior to assuming her duties as Secretary of State, she served as [[National Security Advisor]] to [[President]] [[George W. Bush]]. Her objective of transformational diplomacy is to, "work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people -- and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system." As she stated at her confirmation hearing, "we must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the time for diplomacy is now."<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Condoleezza_Rice.shtml Condoleezza Rice]. Newsmax.</ref>

== Earlier Life and Education ==

Dr. Rice earned her B. A. in [[politics|political]] [[science]] from the [[University of Denver]] in 1974 at age 19. The following year, she received her M.A. from the University of [[Notre Dame]]. She returned to the University of Denver, where she was awarded the Ph.D. in 1981. In addition to [[English]], she is fluent in [[Russian language|Russian]], [[French]], [[German]], and [[Spanish]].

==Pianist==
[[Image:Secretary Rice With Queen Elizabeth.jpg|thumb|right|225px|Secretary Rice with Queen Elizabeth II]]
Dr. Rice is a classically trained pianist and fourth-generation pianist on her mother's side. "At 15 she performed Mozart's Piano Concerto in D minor with the Denver Symphony Orchestra, her prize for winning a student competition. Until college she intended to pursue music professionally." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/arts/music/09tomm.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1228244731-etUkA26YO83zkj8FNgoJBw Condoleezza Rice on Piano], Anthony Tommasini, ''New York Times'', April 9, 2006</ref>
On December 1, 2008, Secretary Rice gave a [[piano]] recital for [[Queen Elizabeth II]] at [[Buckingham Palace]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460105,00.html Rice Plays Piano at Buckingham Palace for Queen Elizabeth II], Associated Press, ''Fox News'', December 02, 2008</ref>

== Career In Academia ==

Condoleeza was first an Assistant Professor at [[Stanford]] (1981–1987). She eventually earned tenure, becoming an Associate Professor (1987–1993), then Professor, and later Provost.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2001/10/15/crice.html Provost].</ref> She was the first black, first woman and the youngest person to be Provost.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/black.history/stories/13.rice/index.html Hoover Institute].</ref> She was also a [[Hoover Institute]] fellow. Her primary expertise was the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Warsaw Pact]] nations.

As Provost, Dr. Rice balanced the budget, even though the deficit was said to be impossibly large, a prediction which Rice happily proved wrong. <ref>[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1999/june9/rice-69.html Stanford University].</ref>

== Career in Joint Chiefs and National Security Council ==

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From 1989 to March 1991 she directed and also directed in a senior position, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. She was also Special Assistant to the President of National Security Affairs. Rice was instrumental to help with developing Bush's and James Baker's policies to make full reunification of Germany. By 1990 she was already George H. W. Bush's principal advisor on the Soviet Union and one of his assistants for National Security Affairs. She impressed President [[George H.W. Bush]], so much, that he said to [[Gorbachev]] she "tells me everything I know about the [[Soviet Union]]."[http://dir.salon.com/story/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/index.html]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Rice returned to her teaching position at Stanford, although she consulted on the former USSR for many. [[Pete Wilson]] appointed her to a bipartisan committee that had been formed to draw new lines for voting. She was also in a Federal Advisory Committee on men and woman training in the Military.

She was helping George W. Bush for his victorious campaign for President in 2000, a later became a key advisor. She said in departure from the failed Clinton policies of the 1990s and an articulation of a new Bush plan at the convention speech “...America's armed forces are not a global police force. They are not the world's 911.”[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/ricetext080100.htm]

== Advising of National Security ==

On 2000, Rice was appointed National Security Advisor and no longer served at Stanford. She was the first woman ever to serve in the position. Over 2001, Rice worked with CIA Director George Tenet almost daily on terrorism and national security issues.

In early 2003, former [[First Lady]] and now Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] spoke of disarming [[Saddam Hussein]]: "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming he would have been much more forthcoming...there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." Dr. Rice repeated these sentiments in an article in the ''[[New York Times]]'' entitled ''Why We Know Iraq Is Lying,'' "instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html]

Leading up to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Rice campaigned for the incumbent president. She used this moment to state her belief that Saddam's government in Iraq contributed to the instability that produced the opportunity for a terrorist attack like the 9/11 attacks on America. At a Pittsburgh, she said "While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable, [and] was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11."

== Business ==

*Carnegie Corporation
*Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
*Charles Schwab Corporation
*Chevron Corporation
*Hewlett Packard
*Rand Corporation
*Transamerica Corporation
*William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
*KQED
*J.P. Morgan Chase
*University of Notre Dame
*San Francisco Symphony
*Center for New Generation
*California and East Menlo Park
*Vice President Boys and Girls Clubs of America of San Francisco
*National Council for Soviet and East European Studies
*Stanford Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition
*Woodrow Wilson Center

== Writings ==

*Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (1995)
*The Gorbachev Era (1986)
*The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983: Uncertain Allegiance (1984).

==External links==
*[http://www.indepthinfo.com/condoleezza-rice/index.shtml Biography of Condoleezza Rice]
==References==
<references/>
{{Conservatism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Rice, Condoleeza}}
[[Category:Educators]]
[[category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:United States Secretaries of State]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Donald Rumsfeld

2013-12-30T16:06:31Z

Iduan: revert vandalism by markman

{{Officeholder
|name=Donald Rumsfeld
|image=ASecDefRumsfeld01.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Joyce H. Pierson
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=Defense
|state=United States
|number=13th & 21st
|deputy=n
|president=[[Gerald Ford]] [[George W. Bush]]
|terms=November 20, 1975 – January 20, 1977 January 20, 2001 – December 18, 2006
|preceded=[[James Schlesinger]] [[William Cohen]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Harold Brown]] [[Robert Gates]]
}}
}}
'''Donald Henry Rumsfeld''' (b. July 9, 1932) was the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] first under President [[Gerald Ford]] from 1975 to 1977 and second under [[George W. Bush]] from 2001 to 2006.

In his second term as Secretary, Rumsfeld showed an intense, unwavering commitment to military transformation--his vision of a leaner, more lethal Department of Defense. He performed brilliantly for the press and won over public opinion. However inside the Pentagon, he ran roughshod over the most experienced generals and admirals, who resented his resistance to professional advice. After [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9-11]], he directed the [[Afghanistan War|war in Afghanistan]], which seemingly vindicated this concept of transformation. While the prospect of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war in Iraq]] in 2003 promised a wider proving ground for it, the unexpected counterinsurgency campaign that followed undermined Rumsfeld's transformation and highlighted his failures in planning and his resistance to changing policies. In late 2006, Bush fired Rumsfeld, replacing him with [[Robert Gates]], who changed strategies and commanders, thus defeating the insurgency and leading the way to victory in Iraq.
==Career==
Born in Chicago, Donald Rumsfeld received his bachelor's degree in 1954 from [[Princeton University]], where he captained the wrestling team. After serving three years (1954–57) in the Navy as an aviator, he worked as a congressional aide in Washington, and as an investment banker in Chicago. In 1962 he won election as a Republican to the [[United States House of Representatives]] from the North Shore district of Illinois; he was reelected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

==Nixon and Ford==
Rumsfeld gave up his safe congressional seat the following year to serve at the Office of Economic Opportunity and at the White House in the administration of President [[Richard Nixon]]. From 1973 to 1974 Rumsfeld was in Brussels, Belgium, as U.S. ambassador to the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO).

In August 1974, after Nixon resigned, Rumsfeld was summoned back to Washington to head President Ford's transition team. He then served as Ford's chief of staff until nominated and confirmed as Secretary of Defense. While at the Department of Defense he campaigned vigorously for increased defense spending, took an active role in Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the [[Soviet Union]], and made his own test flight in an early version of the B-1 bomber.
==Business==
After Ford lost the 1976 presidential election, Rumsfeld returned to the private sector, applying his tough-minded management style as chief executive officer, president, and chairman of the G. D. Searle pharmaceutical firm and in subsequent corporate assignments. He continued to speak out on defense issues and was a voice on several prestigious national commissions.
==Defense==
When George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, his transition manager, Vice-President-elect [[Dick Cheney]], who had been Rumsfeld's protégé in both the Nixon and Ford administrations, recruited Rumsfeld to serve a second term as defense secretary.

Quickly confirmed by the Senate, Rumsfeld took office in January of 2001. During his first seven months on the job, he sought, amid opposition, to restructure the military to meet the needs of the post-[[Cold War]] era. After [[al-Qaeda]] terrorists attacked the U.S. on [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11]], using hijacked aircraft to strike Defense Department headquarters at the Pentagon and to destroy the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld was an outspoken champion of the Bush Administration's [[War on Terror]]. He oversaw the [[Afghanistan War|defeat]] of the [[Taliban]] regime in [[Afghanistan]], which had aided al-Qaeda, and he presided over the largest military buildup since the early 1980s, disarming some media skeptics with his confidence and candor.
==Iraq==
Once the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war]] with the regime of dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] began, the rapid success of U.S.-led forces in ousting Saddam appeared to vindicate Rumsfeld's insistence on sophisticated weaponry, strategic flexibility, and preemptive action. However, after major combat operations ended, and U.S. liberation forces began to face daily attacks from Saddam supporters and other terrorists, critics charged that Rumsfeld had underestimated the problems involved. The criticism intensified in April 2004, with the release of photographs providing evidence of pranks carried out on Iraqi terrorist prisoners by a handful of U.S. military personnel at Baghdad's [[Abu Ghraib prison]] during the fall of 2003. Rumsfeld acknowledged in early 2005 that he had twice offered to resign after the Abu Ghraib revelations, but that President Bush had rejected the offers.

For most of 2005 and 2006, President Bush continued to back Rumsfeld but his strategy in Iraq had failed and he was a drag on the GOP. Finally, on November 8, 2006, the day after an election in which Democrats had captured control of Congress, Bush announced that Rumsfeld would step down; named to replace him was [[Robert Gates]], a conservative who had headed the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] during the presidency of [[George H. W. Bush]].

==Resignation==
Rumsfeld resigned on 18 December 2006 after Democrats won the House and Senate by campaigning against the war and Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq. A number of retired generals, including [[George Soros]] associated Gen. [[Wesley Clark|Clark]], had called for his resignation.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html?_r=1</ref>

When he began his first term as defense secretary, he was the youngest person in U.S. history to hold that position; when he left office at the end of his second term, he was the oldest.

==Positions on social issues==

While has not expressed support for same-sex "marriage", he has so far failed to condemn it, merely saying that he doesn't know whether or not he supports phony homosexual marriages.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/22/rumseld-suggests-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-polygamy/</ref> He supports homosexuals serving in the military.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/rumsfeld-time-has-come-to-allow-gays-to-serve-openly/</ref> While he hasn't expressed support for abortion, he has also failed to condemn it as so far his stance on the subject is unknown.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Donald_Rumsfeld_Abortion.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
* Graham, Bradley. ''By His Own Rules'' (2009), 803 pp. the best of the journalistic biographies

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rumsfeld, Donald}}
[[Category:United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Barry Goldwater

2013-12-30T15:58:57Z

Iduan: revert markman vandalism

[[Image:BarryGoldwater.jpg|right]]

'''Barry Morris Goldwater''' (1909-1998) was a United States [[Senator]] (1953-65 and 1969-87) and the [[Republican]] nominee for [[President]] in 1964. He reinvented the Republican Party after the defeat of [[Richard M. Nixon]] in 1960, benefiting from a national grassroots conservative effort that overcame the Eastern liberal Republicans and [[Nelson Rockefeller]] in 1964. Goldwater was strongly anti-[[communist]] and called for a rollback of its influence around the world, asking, ''Why Not Victory.'' He called for an end to liberal domestic policies as supported by the [[New Deal Coalition]]. Goldwater was defeated in a sweeping landslide in 1964 by incumbent Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]. Goldwater lost the leadership of the conservative movment to [[Ronald Reagan]], but returned to the Senate where he continued to support a strong defense. Unlike libertarians, Goldwater was hawkish on foreign policy, and Goldwater became irrelevant in his later years as he criticized social conservatives like [[Jerry Falwell]].

==Early Life==
Goldwater was born into an Episcopalian family with Jewish heritage on his father's side. He was born in Phoenix, Arizona on January 2, 1909. He attended the Phoenix public schools, Staunton Military Academy, and University of Arizona for one year. He began his business career in 1929 at his family's department store. He served in the the Second World War and later in the National Guard.

==1964 Presidential campaign==
Barry Goldwater entered the United States Senate in 1953. During the 1960 Presidential election there was a campaign among [[conservative]]s to draft Goldwater for President, a race in which [[Richard Nixon]] ultimately won the Republican nomination and [[John F. Kennedy]] narrowly defeated him for President. The campaign to draft Goldwater to run for President continued in the next election cycle. In 1964 Goldwater seriously sought the nomination, not running for re-election to the Senate that year, and was successful, defeating New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. He was defeated in the general election by incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]]. After the election he ran successfully again for the Senate in 1968.

Lyndon Johnson was successful in part because of continued public sympathy over the [[John F. Kennedy assassination]], the use of [[negative advertising]] such as the notorious "daisy" TV ad which raised fears of [[nuclear war]] if Goldwater were elected, and negative media coverage of some of the conservative groups supporting Goldwater, such as the [[John Birch Society]]. Johnson ironically ran as a "peace candidate" but shortly after the election drastically escalated U.S. involvement in the [[Vietnam War]].

The 1964 Goldwater campaign helped usher in the modern conservative movement in the United States. The political careers of both [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Ronald Reagan]] got a big boost during the campaign. Schlafly wrote a book, ''[[A Choice, Not An Echo]]'' during the campaign which was widely distributed and launched her career as a conservative political activist. ''A Choice, Not An Echo'' detailed the machinations of the [[moderate]] to [[liberal]] East Coast wing of the Republican Party to hand-pick Presidential candidates (Nixon, [[Wendell Willkie]], [[Dwight Eisenhower]], etc.) and called for conservatives in the party to organize to counter this wing of the party and their "kingmaker" approach to nominating candidates. The book was a rallying call for conservatives in the party and helped Goldwater win the nomination. Reagan gave a speech as part of a "TV for Goldwater-Miller" television ad campaign which made him an up and coming star among conservatives, eventually leading to his own series of Presidential campaigns in 1968, 1976. and 1980, the last of which successfully landed him in the [[White House]]. The 1964 Goldwater campaign was also followed by the rise of a growing conservative campus movement during the 1960s led by [[Young Americans for Freedom]], the rise of a small [[libertarian]] movement which also supported Goldwater but would later split with conservatism over the [[draft]] and [[drug]] policy, and modern conservative movement approaches such as [[direct mail]] organizing.

The 1964 Goldwater campaign also marked the first time since before the [[Civil War]] that the states of the Deep South, angered by the liberal Johnson's support for civil rights, broke from the [[Democratic Party]] and gave their electoral votes to the Republican nominee. Goldwater broke with most GOP senators when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<ref>Taylor Branch, ''Pillar of Fire'' 356-357 </ref> In the Senate, he strongly supported both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.<ref>Barry Goldwater, Where I Stand (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964)</ref>. He also helped desegregate the Arizona National Guard and was a member of Arizona's NAACP. Although he eventually regretted his vote, his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based strictly on political ideological grounds. As a strong ''conservative'', he believed that two of its sections, Title II and Title VII, unlawfully overextended the role of the federal government.

==Quotes==
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention of 1964 Goldwater called out:
:I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!<ref> Thomas Paine wrote in 1795, "Those words, 'temperate and moderate,' are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice." Paine, "Letter to the addressers on the late proclamation against seditious writings." in ''The Writings of Thomas Paine,'' ed. Moncure D. Conway, (1895) vol. 3, pp. 94–95 </ref>

:"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism." (Acceptance speech)

==Social Views==
Social issues were low in priority for both Goldwater and the conservative movement in the 1960s, and no one supported him for (or even knew) his stance on social issues. After 1980, with his first wife waning in health and long after Goldwater was a conservative leader, he began to express liberal opinions on some social issues. Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
:''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from ''National Review,'' Dec. 10, 2004]

After his wife of nearly 50 years died, and when Goldwater was nearly 80 years old, he became more vocal in his liberal social opinions. After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor [[Evan Mecham]] as "hardheaded" and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks". In a 1994 interview with the ''[[Washington Post]]'' the retired senator said, {{cquote|When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like [[Pat Robertson]] and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.}}

In response to [[Moral Majority]] founder [[Jerry Falwell]]'s opposition to the nomination of [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."<ref>Ed Magnuson, [[Time Magazine]], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954833-2,00.html ''The Brethren's First Sister''], July 20, 1981. Retrieved 1/1/07.</ref>

Goldwater was long an outspoken critic of presidents of both parties, harshly criticizing [[Richard Nixon]] at a pivotal time during [[Watergate]]. Goldwater criticized the arms to Iran that became public in 1986 as part of the [[Iran-Contra Affair]] as "the god-damned stupidest foreign policy blunder this country's ever made!'",<ref>[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-374469737793037291&q=Robert+MacNeil "Archive of American Television Interview with Robert MacNeil Part 5 of 14" (video)]</ref>. Otherwise, Goldwater thought that Reagan was a good president.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLATQAU-Hw0&feature=related YouTube - Charlie Rose - Goldwater tribute/]</ref>

In 1992, Goldwater remarried a much younger divorcee. He then disagreed further with [[conservatives]] on social issues. He criticized the military's ban on [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of [[Julius Caesar]]."<ref>"Ban On Gays Is Senseless Attempt To Stall The Inevitable", ''Los Angeles Times'', ''Washington Post''. Online at [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html ]</ref> He also said, "You don't have to ''be'' straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to ''shoot'' straight." A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."<ref>[[The Betrayal of America]] by [[Vincent Bugliosi]], 2001</ref>

In 1996, Goldwater told Republican presidential candidate [[Bob Dole]], whose own positions lacked real support from conservatives: "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?" In that same year, with Senator [[Dennis DeConcini]], Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize [[medical marijuana]].<ref> [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30148.html Prescription: Drugs] Reason Magazine</ref>

==Family==
Goldwater was married twice. He was married to [[Margaret Goldwater|Margaret Johnson]] from 1934 until her death in 1985. They had four children: Joanne, Barry, Michael, and Peggy. In 1992 Goldwater, age 83, married Susan Shaffer Lechers, age 51.<ref>http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/0602GoldwaterFacts01-ON.html</ref> They remained married until his death in 1998.

==Bibliography==
*Mary C. Brennan, ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the G.O.P.'' (1995)
*Edwards, Lee. ''Goldwater'' (1995). biography
*Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995), the standard scholarly biography
*Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996).
*Matthews, Jeffrey J. "To Defeat a Maverick: The Goldwater Candidacy Revisited, 1963–1964." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' 27#1 1997. pp 662+.
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2001) Very well researched and written narrative of the 1964 campaign.
*White, Theodore, ''The Making of the President: 1964'' (1965)
==Primary sources==
*Goldwater, Barry. ''Conscience of a Conservative'' (1963) highly influential manifesto ISBN 0-89526-540-0
*Goldwater, Barry. ''Why Not Victory? A fresh look at American policy'' (1963)
*Goldwater, Barry. ''Conscience of a Majority'' (1971) ISBN 0-671-78096-4
*Goldwater, Barry. ''Arizona'' (1977) ISBN 0-938379-04-6
*Goldwater, Barry. ''With No Apologies: The Outspoken Political Memoirs of America's Conservative Conscience'' (1979) ISBN 0-425-04663-X
*Goldwater, Barry. ''Goldwater'' (1988) ISBN 0-385-23947-5, autobiography
*Gallup, George H. ed. ''The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935–1971,'' vol. 3. (1972)
*Hess, Karl. ''In A Cause That Will Triumph: The Goldwater Campaign and the Future of Conservatism'' (1967), memoir by BG's speechwriter

==References==
<references/>
== Also See ==
*[[Conservative links]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Goldwater, Barry}}

[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Arizona]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Failed Presidential Candidates]]
{{conservatism}}

Colin Powell

2013-12-30T15:54:29Z

Iduan: revert markman vandlism

{{Officeholder
|name=Colin Powell
|image=Colin_Powell.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Alma Vivian Johnson Powell
|religion=[[Episcopalian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=State
|state=United States
|number=65th
|deputy=n
|president=[[George W. Bush]]
|terms=January 20, 2001-January 26, 2005
|preceded=[[Madeleine Albright]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Condoleezza Rice]]
}}
}}
'''General Colin Luther Powell''', United States Army (Ret.) (born April 5, 1937) was the 65th [[United States]] [[Secretary of State]] (2001-2005) under President [[George W. Bush]] and is a [[liberal]] member of the [[Republican Party]]. As a General in the [[United States Army]], Powell also served as [[National Security Advisor]] (1987–1989), and as Chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]] (1989–1993) he became the highest ranking African American government official in the history of the United States.

==Military career==
While at City College Powell joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and later described it as one of the happiest experiences of his life: finding something he loved and could do well, he had "found himself." After graduating from City College in June 1958, he was granted a commission as an Army Second Lieutenant. Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and later served as a General. During his military career Powell received the [[Purple Heart]], [[Bronze Star]] and the [[Soldiers Medal]].

==Presidential appointments==
At the age of 49, Powell became President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. He retained his Army commission (he was a Lieutenant General at the time of his nomination) while serving as National Security Advisor. After his tenure, Powell was promoted to 4-star General under President [[George H.W. Bush]].

From 1989 to 1993, General Powell served as chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]], the highest [[military]] position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of [[Panama]] in 1989 to remove General [[Manuel Noriega]] from power in 1989 and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 [[Persian Gulf War]]. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, "the reluctant warrior". After the end of Persian Gulf War, Colin Powell outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the [[Powell Doctrine]]. The Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Secretary of State Colin Powell, [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, President George W. Bush talks with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Later as Secretary of State in the Bush [[administration]], Powell was tremendously popular among the American people. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], Powell's job became of critical importance in managing America's relationships with foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the [[War on Terrorism]]. Powell is best known in the international community for testifying to the [[United Nations]] in 2003 about the specifics of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and for failing to generate international support for United States' [[foreign policy]] in George W. Bush's first term.<ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749726236.html Failure of US diplomacy may claim Powell's scalp</ref> After Powell left the [[National Security Council]], the fortunes for the United States markedly improved in diplomacy (with countries like [[France]]<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501691.html?hpid=sec-world Washington Post - Rice Breaks Ice With France's New Leaders]</ref>) and in the [[Iraq War]] after the [[troop surge]] was implemented in George W. Bush's second term. In 2008, he endorsed [[Barack Obama]], who had opposed the surge in 2007.

==Political views==
Colin Powell is a [[liberal]] or moderate Republican who is [[pro-choice]] regarding [[abortion]], supports [[affirmative action]] and "reasonable" [[gun control]]. Although Powell was against [[gay]] marriage at the time (now he's supportvie of it<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76687.html</ref>), he helped craft the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the United States military, along with [[Bill Clinton]]. He has also been critical of the current policy in Iraq. In 2005, Powell telephoned two Senator's, [[Lincoln Chafee]] of [[Rhode Island]] and [[Chuck Hagel]] of [[Nebraska]] (also liberal Republicans) asking them to oppose the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. In September 2005, Powell criticized the government's response to [[Hurricane Katrina]]. He also opposed [[Guantanamo Bay]] and stripping [[Geneva Convention]] protections from captured terrorists. Powell was mentioned as a potential running mate for [[John McCain]]<ref>http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html</ref>, but said he was no longer interested in elected office.

Powell has expressed support for homosexuals serving in the military,<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/powell-favors-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?_r=0</ref> and for phony same-sex unions as well.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/colin-powell-expresses-support-gay-marriage/story?id=16416112.</ref>

==Obama endorsement==
On 19 October 2008, Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President. Powell said that Obama was a "transformational figure coming into the world stage" <ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/</ref> and expressed disappointment in what he called the "negative tone" of McCain's campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of [[Sarah Palin]] as the Republican vice presidential nominee <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-presiden-1/</ref> saying that she lacked experience even as he was supporting a candidate with one year of experience in the Senate before running for President. Powell went on to criticize other Republicans for what he claims is insistence on their part that Obama is a Muslim stating, "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the Republican Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7678788.stm</ref> A month prior, Powell had said that the thought of an African American President was 'electrifying'. In his speech backing Obama, he also said he did not want to see the appointment of Conservative [[Supreme Court]] Justices.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/</ref> Along with Palin, he's also been critical of other influential people in the Republican Party, such as radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]], who he claims engages in an "ugly" kind of politics, commentator [[Ann Coulter]], Congresswoman [[Michele Bachmann]], who's statement that Obama might hold anti-American views influenced his decision to endorse the [[Illinois]] Senator, those who doubt the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, and various members of the Bush administration, including former Vice-President [[Dick Cheney]] and former Defense Secretary [[Donald Rumsfeld]], whose conflicts with him, it's believed, caused him to resign his position.

==Family and personal information==
Powell has been married to Alma Vivian Johnson since 1962. They have one child, a son, Michael (1963). The Powells are [[Episcopalians]]. One of Colin Powell's hobbies is restoring classic automobiles.<ref>http://www.4driversonly.com/50226711/colin_powell_drives_a_66_volvo.php</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Powell, Colin}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:United States Army]]
[[Category:United States Secretaries of State]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Mark Kirk

2013-12-30T15:51:31Z

Iduan: revert markman vandalism

{{Officeholder
|name=Mark Kirk
|image=000markkirk.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Kimberly Vertolli (2001-2009)(divorced)
|religion=[[United Church of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=November 29, 2010 – Present
|preceded=[[Roland Burris]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Illinois
|district=10th
|terms=January 3, 2001 – November 29, 2010
|preceded=John Porter
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Robert Dold]]
}}
}}

'''Mark Steven Kirk''' (born September 15, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from [[Illinois]], having won the Senate seat once held by [[President Obama]]. A [[Republican]], previously he represented [[Illinois]]'s 10th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the House, Kirk was a member of the Appropriations Committee. Previously he was a Naval Reserve intelligence officer and served during conflicts in [[Afghanistan]], [[Iraq]], [[Haiti]], and [[Bosnia]]. Kirk has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 86% of the time during the current [[Congress]].<ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000360/</ref> A [[moderate Republican]], he received a 100% rating from [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] and an 82% rating from the [[League of Conservation Voters]]. <ref>http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=33502&type=category&category=30&go.x=8&go.y=15</ref> Kirk describes himself as someone who works to advance a suburban agenda that is
pro-defense, pro-personal responsibility, pro-[[environment]], and pro-[[science]]. He was one of only eight House Republicans who voted for the [[cap and trade]] climate legislation. Kirk voted against the 2009 economic stimulus package.

Kirk suffered a stroke on January 21, 2012, affecting the physical movement on his left side but not affecting his cognitive skills. He spent months in rehabilitation, and returned home in May 2012, but as of June, has not yet returned to the Senate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57430368-503544/mark-kirk-details-stroke-recovery-in-video/ Mark Kirk details stroke recovery in video] Madison, Lucy, May 8, 2012, cbsnews.com, retrieved June 29, 2012.</ref> One perk Kirk receives as a senator is unlimited sick leave.<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/April-2012/A-Senate-Perk-Unlimited-Sick-Leave/ A Senate Perk: Unlimited Sick Leave] Ford, Quinn, April 2012, chicagomag.com, retrieved June 29, 2012</ref>.

==External links==
*[http://kirk.senate.gov/ Senate Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk.htm On the Issues]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Illinois]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:RINOs]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-26T16:02:54Z

Iduan: /* last point */ new section

[[Talk:Disturbed character/Archive Set 1|Archive 1]]

== last point ==

I understand why Conservative archived the page, but last point I'd like you to address that you didn't get a chance to with the back and forth earlier: if psychology is more inexact art than science, how can you cite anyone as a definitive example of a psychological diagnosis? If it's as easy as lining up the person's reported traits with the symptoms/traits of the diagnosis, then aren't you suggesting you - someone with no formal training - can be exact?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:02, 26 December 2013 (EST)

Benjamin Harrison

2013-12-26T01:58:32Z

Iduan: template

{{Officeholder
|name=Benjamin Harrison
|image=Benjamin Harrison by Johnson.jpg
|party=[[Republican]] [[Whig Party]]
|spouse=Caroline Scott Harrison Mary Scott Lord Dimmick
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=March 4, 1889 - March 4, 1893<ref>http://www.trivia-library.com/a/23rd-us-president-benjamin-harrison.htm</ref>
|vp=[[Levi P. Morton]]
|preceded=[[Grover Cleveland]]
|former=y
|succeeded=Grover Cleveland
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Indiana
|terms=March 4, 1881 – March 4, 1887
|preceded=Joseph McDonald
|former=y
|succeeded=David Turpie
}}
|military=y
|branch=[[Union Army]]
|rank=Brigadier General
|unit=Army of the Cumberland
|commands=70th Regiment Indiana Infantry 1st Brigade of the 1st Division of the XX Corps
|battles=[[American Civil War]]
}}

* See [[Benjamin Harrison V| Benjamin Harrison]], the signer of the Declaration of Independence.

'''Benjamin Harrison''' was the 23rd President of the United States, serving from 1889-1893 and known as a conservative Republican. He was born August 20, 1833 in North Bend, Ohio. He was the grandson of President [[William Harrison]]. He defeated Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]] in a close election in 1888. Harrison's term was characterized by being full of federal spending and legislation including tariffs and other taxes. He was defeated for reelection in 1892 by Cleveland. He died on March 31, 1901. He was a representative politician of the [[Gilded Age]].

==Early career==
Harrison was born in North Bend, Ohio, on , and grew up on a 600-acre (243-hectare) farm nearby. His father, John Scott Harrison, was a congressman; his grandfather, [[William Henry Harrison]], was ninth president of the United States, but served only 309 days; and his great-grandfather, Benjamin Harrison, signed the Declaration of Independence.

In 1852 Harrison was graduated from Miami University in Ohio, and a year later he married Caroline Lavinia Scott, by whom he had two children, Russell and Mary. After reading law in Cincinnati, Harrison moved in 1854 to Indianapolis. There, his rise was slow. In 1860 he was elected reporter of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Church affairs and politics always interested Harrison. He was a devout member of the [[Presbyterian]] Church and for 40 years served as an elder. He belonged to the pietistic wing that gave heavy support to the Republican party, and to prohibition Harrison himself did not support prohibitiom.
==Civil War==
In 1854, when the struggle over slavery was at white heat, he joined the newly organized Republican Party. For the next 40 years he loyally supported his party in every campaign and became one of its best speakers. Early in the Civil War Harrison helped to raise the 70th Indiana Infantry Regiment and became its colonel. After two years of prosaic guard duty in Kentucky and Tennessee, his regiment was attached to General [[William T. Sherman]]'s army and participated in the Atlanta campaign in 1864. During much of the time Harrison was in command of his brigade and at the close of the war was brevetted a brigadier general and cited for gallantry. Thereafter he was known as General Harrison. In 1865 Harrison returned to the practice of law and was immediately recognized as one of the leading lawyers in Indiana. In 1881 he was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. His income enabled him to build a spacious home in Indianapolis.

==Politics==
Harrison's interest in politics continued. In 1876 he was drafted by his party as its candidate for governor of Indiana, but after a bitterly fought campaign he was defeated. His manifest ability attracted national attention. President [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] appointed him to the newly created Mississippi River Commission; in 1878 he was elected chairman of the Republican state convention; in 1880, as chairman of the Indiana delegation, he played a prominent part in the nomination of [[James A. Garfield]] for president; he was offered a cabinet post by Garfield but declined

Harrison preferred to be a United States senator and was easily elected by the state legislature in 1881. As chairman of the committee on territories he sponsored an act granting Alaska civil government and, against Democratic opposition, vainly sought the admission of Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota as states. He championed the Mississippi River Commission, naval expansion, and the regulation of railroads. s a senator, Harrison supported [[civil service reform]] to supplant the traditional spoils system, high protective tariffs to foster industrial development, a strong navy, and regulation of the railroads. He persistently attacked President [[Grover Cleveland]]'s vetoes of veterans' pension bills. Harrison's popularity with veterans was to be a major factor in winning the presidential nomination in 1888.

Although defeated by two votes in the legislature for reelection to the Senate, Harrison loomed as the strongest Republican candidate for president in 1888 and was nominated on the 8th ballot after the New York delegation swung to him. An intensely fought campaign followed, with the [[tariff]] as the main issue.<ref> Richard Jensen, ''The Winning of the Midwest'' (1971), ch. 1</ref> Harrison set a precedent by conducting an effective "front porch" campaign, making a large number of short speeches to visiting delegations. His masterful campaign chairman was Philadelphia dry goods merchant John Wanamaker, who perfected the "army style" of [[American election campaigns, 19th century|19th century campaigns]]. Harrison defeated incumbent Grover Cleveland by a vote of 233 to 168 in the electoral college, although Cleveland received 5,537,857 popular votes to Harrison's 5,447,129.

==Presidency==
===Significant Events During Benjamin Harrison's Presidency Term===
In 1890, the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]], [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], and [[McKinley Tariff]] were passed into law.
The [[Wounded Knee Massacre]] also occurred in 1890.

==Cabinet==
Among Harrison's excellent cabinet appointments was Benjamin F. Tracy, secretary of the Navy. Armor-clad ships of the most modern design--fateful for Spain in 1898--were rapidly built and navy yard employees were placed under civil service. John Wanamaker, as postmaster general, inspired his department with a vision of greater service. He advocated the establishment of postal savings banks and the parcel post--ideas that were to be realized two decades later. The appointment of [[James G. Blaine]] (the Republican presidential candidate defeated by Cleveland in the 1884 election) as secretary of state was viewed critically by some. Harrison kept in close touch with each department's major programs. He brought two future presidents to Washington: [[Theodore Roosevelt]] as civil service commissioner and [[William Howard Taft]] as solicitor general. In [[civil service reform]] good progress was made, but it was not revolutionary enough to satisfy its proponents.

[[Image:TINMAN1890.jpg|thumb|300px|1890 ''Puck'' cartoon ridicules President Harrison (who called for a tariff on tin), as a little Tin Man, while Secretary of State Blaine is a larger figure clad in steel armor.]]
===Strong foreign policy===
Harrison appreciated the new forces which were inevitably sweeping the United States onward into playing a more important part in world affairs. He took great pride in the new navy and the increase of the merchant marine, and watched for opportunities to acquire naval bases. American claims in Samoa were pushed with vigor; annexation of Hawaii was attempted but postponed by Democratic opposition; the purchase of the Danish West Indies was quietly considered, as was the acquisition of the Môle St. Nicolas in Haiti. In the bitter controversy with Chile, during which war was narrowly averted, Harrison insisted on respect for the uniform of the United States. The increasing importance of the United States in world affairs was reflected in the act of Congress in 1893 which raised the rank of the most important diplomatic representatives abroad from minister plenipotentiary to ambassador.
===Domestic policy===
During his administration the [[McKinley Tariff Act]] with its important reciprocity section, the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], the [[Antitrust|Sherman Antitrust Act]], and the Dependent Pension Act for Civil War veterans were passed. Idaho and Wyoming were admitted as states and the Oklahoma Territory was opened to settlement. The civil rights bill (attacked as a "Force Bill" by Democrats) failed when Republicans from western silverstates traded their votes to get the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.

The election of 1890 was a landslide for the Democrats, who campaigned against the high-spending "billion dollar Congress," the high McKinley tariff, and the Republican attacks on foreign language schools in Wisconsin and Illinois. Despite Harrison's icy personality, he won renomination in 1892 by packing the GOP convention with office holders. He was defeated by a landslide by Cleveland in a rematch in 1892.

<blockquote>
In 1890, an act of Congress creates [[Yosemite National Park]], home of such natural wonders as Half Dome and the giant sequoia trees. Environmental trailblazer John Muir (1838-1914) and his colleagues campaigned for the congressional action, which was signed into law by President Harrison and paved the way for generations of hikers, campers and nature lovers, along with countless "Don't Feed the Bears" signs. [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history]

</blockquote>

==Retirement==
Harrison retired to private law practice. He was selected as senior counselor by Venezuela in its boundary dispute with Great Britain before the Paris Arbitration Tribunal. After the death of his wife he married Mrs. Mary Scott Lord Dimmick in 1896 and by her had one child, Elizabeth. In his later years Harrison often spoke and wrote effectively on the important economic and political questions of the day. His popular book, ''This Country of Ours,'' describing the government of the United States, had a wide sale and influence.
==Bibliography==
* Calhoun, Charles W. ''Benjamin Harrison'' (2005), short biography by leading scholar
* Dearing, Mary R. ''Veterans in Politics'' (1952), covers the issue of veterans' pensions
* De Santis, Vincent P. ''Republicans Face the Southern Question'' (1959), explains the defeat of the ciivl rights program
* De Santis, Vincent P. "The Republican Party and the Southern Negro, 1877-1897." ''The Journal of Negro History'', Vol. 45, No. 2, (1960) pp 71-87 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992(196004)45%3A2%3C71%3ATRPATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N in JSTOR]
* De Santis, Vincent P. "The Political Life of the Gilded Age: A Review of the Recent Literature" ''The History Teacher,'' Vol. 9, No. 1 (Nov., 1975), pp. 73-106 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2745(197511)9%3A1%3C73%3ATPLOTG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W in JSTOR]
* Dozer, D. M. "Benjamin Harrison and the Presidential Campaign of 1892," in ''American Historical Review'' 54, no. 1 (1948) [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(194810)54%3A1%3C49%3ABHATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L in JSTOR]
* Faulkner, Harold U.; ''Politics, Reform, and Expansion, 1890-1900'' (1959), scholarly survey, strong on economic and political history [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8541336 online edition]
* Fine, Sidney. ''Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State: A Study of Conflict in American Thought'', 1865–1901. University of Michigan Press, 1956. History of ideas
* Garraty, John A. ''The New Commonwealth, 1877-1890,'' (1968)scholarly survey, strong on economic and political history
* Gibbons, H. A. ''John Wanamaker,'' 2 vols. (1926), covers the 1888 campaign.
* Jensen, Richard. "Democracy, Republicanism and Efficiency: The Values of American Politics, 1885-1930," in Byron Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds, ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (U of Kansas Press, 2001) pp 149-180; [http://www.uic.edu/~rjensen/rj0025.htm online version] , by conservative historian
* Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971), voting behavior , by conservative historian
* Josephson, Matthew. ''The Politicos: 1865-1896'' (1938). entertaining left-wing narrative of national politics
* Kleppner; Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), the most important and detailed analysis of voting behavior in 1888-1892[http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-third-electoral-system-1853-1892-parties-voters-and-political-cultures-by-paul-kleppner.jsp online edition]
* McMurry, Donald L. "The Bureau of Pensions During the Administration of President Harrison," ''Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 13, no. 3 (1926) [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X(192612)13%3A3%3C343%3ATBOPDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R in JSTOR]
* Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/read/94446383 online edition]
* Muzzey, David Saville. ''James G. Blaine: A Political Idol of Other Days (1934), , by conservative historian
* Rhodes, James Ford. ''History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Roosevelt-Taft Administration'' (1920), 8 vol. highly detailed narrative from 1850 to 1909, , by conservative historian
* Sievers, Harry J. [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Harrison-Hoosier-Warrior-Signature/dp/0945707169/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194364183&sr=8-5 ''Benjamin Harrison: Hoosier Warrior (1833-1865),''], [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Harrison-Hoosier-Statesman-Signature/dp/0945707177/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194364183&sr=8-2 ''Benjamin Harrison: Hoosier Statesman (1865-1888)''], and [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Harrison-President-1889-1901-Signature/dp/0945707185/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194364183&sr=8-3 ''Benjamin Harrison: Hoosier President: The White House and After''] (1952-1968), the standard scholarly biography
* Socolofsky, Homer E., and Allan B. Spetter. ''The Presidency of Benjamin Harrison'' (1987), the leading interpretive study of the Harrison presidency. [http://www.amazon.com/Presidency-Benjamin-Harrison-American/dp/0700603204/ref=pd_bbs_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194364183&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Tyler, Alice Felt. ''Foreign Policy of James G. Blaine'' (1927)
* White, Leonard D. ''The Republican Era, 1869-1901'' (1958), analyzes each cabinet as well as civil service reform
===Primary sources===
* Blaine, James G. . “The Presidential Election of 1892.” North American Review 15 (November 1892): 513—25. [http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0155-61 online edition]
* Blaine, Walker, "Why Harrison was Elected!," '' North American Review'' Volume 147, Issue 385 (December 1888) pp. 686-696 [http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0147-110 online edition]
* Volwiler, Albert T., ed. ''The Correspondence between Benjamin Harrison and James G. Blaine, 1882—1893.'' American Philosophical Society, 1940. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99596344 online edition]

====notes====
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Harrison, Benjamin}}

[[Category:Republicans]]

Nelson Mandela

2013-12-26T01:39:00Z

Iduan: fix grammar

{{Officeholder
|name=Nelson Mandela
|image=Mandela2.jpg
|party=[[African National Congress]] 
|spouse=Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944–1957) Winnie Madikizela (1958–1996) Graça Machel (1998-)
|religion=[[Methodism]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=South Africa
|number=
|terms=10 May 1994 – 14 June 1999
|vp=[[Thabo Mbeki]] [[F. W. de Klerk]]
|preceded=F. W. de Klerk
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thabo Mbeki]]
}}
}}
'''Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela''' (July 18, 1918 - December 5th, 2013) was a [[South Africa]]n anti-apartheid leader, politician and [[philanthropist]] who served as President of South Africa from 1994-1999. For his life Mandela received more than 250 honors, including the 1993 [[Nobel Peace Prize]], the US [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] (from [[George W. Bush]]), the Soviet Order of Lenin and the Bharat Ratna.
==Early life==
Mandela was born Rolihlahla Mandela on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, to Nonqaphi Nosekeni and Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation.<ref name="NYT obituary">{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela_obit.html?pagewanted=1&ref=international-home|work=The New York Times|author=Keller, Bill|date=December 5, 2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|title=Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> When his father died at nine Nelson was taken in as a ward to Jongintaba Dalindyebo.<ref name="official biography">{{cite web|work=Nelson Mandela Foundation|title=Biography|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=12-10-2013|url=http://www.nelsonmandela.org/content/page/biography}}</ref>

===Education===
Mandela was sent to a [[Methodist]]<ref name="independent biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nelson-mandela-life-story-a-long-walk-to-immortality--the-life-and-times-of-madiba-8406457.html|work=The Independent|language=English|country=UK|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela biography: A long walk to immortality - the life and times of Madiba|author=Sampson, Anthony}}</ref> mission school for his primary education,<ref name="AllAfrica">{{cite web|url=http://allafrica.com/stories/201312091064.html|work=AllAfrica|title=South Africa: Biography of Nelson Mandela|date=12-06-2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> followed by time at Clarkebury Boarding Institute and Healdtown.<ref name="official biography"/> He began studying for a [[bachelor's degree]] at University College of Fort Hare, the only residential college for [[blacks]] in South Africa,<ref name="NYT obituary"/> but, along with Oliver Tambo,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> was expelled for joining a student [[protest]].<ref name="official biography"/> Upon returning to his village, as retribution,<ref name="official biography"/> Mandela's family selected a bride for him and his cousin, Justice; the two fled the family - and the prospect of leadership in [[tribal]] government - for [[Johannesburg, South Africa]].<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> There he worked in gold mines as a guard, but was fired when his superior discovered he was a runaway.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela would complete his bachelor's degree at the University of South Africa in 1943 and return to Fort Hare for his graduation.<ref name="official biography"/>

==Pre-imprisonment career==
===Work experience, early political activism===
In Johannesburg, Mandela was introduced to Walter Sisulu, a [[real estate]] businessman and a prominent member of the [[African National Congress]] (ANC) - a black liberation party opposed the extreme segregation called [[apartheid]]; <ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid|title=Apartheid|work=History|publisher=A&E Television Networks, LLC|accessdate=December 18, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Sisulu arranged for Mandela to be articled to a white attorney, Lazar Sidelsky, while Mandela studied [[law]] part time at University of the Witwatersrand - though he would leave the school in 1948.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="official biography"/> Mandela began to follow Anton Lembede; he, along with Mandela, Tambo and Sisulu organized the radical A.N.C. Youth League, alienating some white sympathizers with their strong black national rhetoric.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> The Youth League was also critical of the "old guard" leadership of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I was angry at the white man, not at racism ... While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=left|width=300px}}
At this time, Mandela fell strongly onto the side of Africanism is the liberation debate between Africanism and nonracialism
in liberation theology, though his eventual embrace of nonracialism would define his later life and career.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> The ANC Youth League was also fiercely anti-[[communist]]; Mandela would break up Communist Party meetings - regarding Communism as foreign and non-Afircan and believing that blacks should liberate themselves.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> This philosophy changed with the victory of the Afrikaner National Party in 1948 in the all-white elections; the National Party had run on a platform of [[apartheid]] and strong anti-communism.<ref name="independent biography"/> The elections sparked the radicalization of the ANC<ref name="telegraph biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10503342/Nelson-Mandela-A-life-rich-in-drama-tragedy-triumph-and-reconciliation.html|work=The Telegraph|title=Nelson Mandela: A life rich in drama, tragedy, triumph and reconciliation|format=HTML|language=English|author= Holman, Michael|date=December 7, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> - in 1949 the Youth League's tactics of boycott, strike, civil disobedience and non-co-operation were adopted as official ANC policy, and older members were purged from leadership positions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela would assume leadership positions within the party - including President of the Youth League and National Volunteer-in-Chief of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>

In 1952, the ANC launched its first passive resistance - the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/> The Defiance Campaign was suppressed with legislation lead by the National Party; protests were met with arrests - including that of Mandela's in 1956 on charges of [[treason]] (one of 156 ANC leaders to be arrested that year).<ref name="independent biography"/> The court found that Mandela had consistently advised his adherers to not resort to violence, but he was found guilty of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act and given a suspended prison sentence.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela was also confined to Johannesburg for six months and prohibited from attending gatherings; during this time, Mandela, despite not completing his law degree, and Tambo set up the first black law partnership in South Africa;<ref name="NYT obituary"/> the firm helped black clients with their political and other legal difficulties.<ref name="independent biography"/>

In 1953, Mandela created the M-plan (named after him) - a contingency plan in case the ANC - like the Communist Party - was declared illegal. The M-plan detailed how the party could run underground, communicating with members without resorting to public meetings.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Throughout the fifties Mandela would be consistently banned, arrested and imprisoned.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> In 1960 - the more radical Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) broke away from the ANC; their tactics- though still peaceful - were more aggressive and were met with violence.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> On March 21, 1961 police killed 69 peaceful protestors in what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre; after this massacre both parties were banned.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

===Militarist leader===
The Sharpeville Massacre sparked a turning point for Mandela - he became convinced that the ANC needed to adopt a separate military wing, called Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation; Mandela was made commander-in-chief.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/> There is also evidence that Mandela joined the South African Communist Party and a member the party's Central Committee (though he denied it through his life) - presumably for contacts.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|work=Business Day Live|title=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|author= Marrian, Natasha|date=December 6, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
The new, violent, methods of the ANC were to destroy power plants and communications systems; the goal was that these acts would limit overseas investment. Mandela was adamant that the group not kill, but by the end of its 20 year campaign 63 people had been killed and 483 injured; the group was declared a [[terrorist]] group by the white South African government and the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8304153/Nelson-Mandelas-Spear-of-the-Nation-the-ANCs-armed-resistance.html|title=Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance|author=Laing, Aislinn|work=The Telegraph|format=HTML|language=English|date=February 5, 2011|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> Mandela left the country soon after the Spear of the Nation began its tactics, hoping to generate worldwide support and economic sanctions so that Pretoria might abandon apartheid.<ref name="independent biography"/> In 1962, Mandela was arrested after 17 months in hiding, charged with incitement to strike and illegally leaving the country.<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=right|width=300px}}
While serving, the South African police raided a farm near Rivonia - finding future plans of sabotage; Mandela and his colleagues were charged with organising sabotage and violent revolution as well as furthering the aims of communism; at his trial, Mandela declared his ideal of democracy in a four hour speech - concluding, "It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela acknowledged his crimes - that he was the commander of Spear of the Nation and that he had made alliances with Communists, but declared that he had turned to violence only when nonviolent means were foreclosed and likened his affiliation with Communists to Churchill’s cooperation with Stalin against Hitler.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Nelson also commented on his political evolution from black nationalist to multiracialist.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In part due to overwhelming pressure from the international community - including a near-unaminous vote by the [[United Nations]] - the lives of the accused were spared; Mandela and his colleagues were sentenced to life in prison.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

==Imprisonment==
Mandela became an elder statesman of the prison on Robben Island<ref name="telegraph biography"/> - where there were frequent clashes with prisoners and guards, he seemed above the fray; he was also singled out for cruelties. He was denied permission to attend the funerals of his mother and oldest son, and his wife endured persecution after being exiled from Johannesburg.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela and the prisoners initially turned down officers of release; he commented "Prisoners cannot enter into contracts - only free men can negotiate."<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela credited his time in prison with the cessation of his desire for vengeance, speaking of sympathetic white guards and National Party members who would attempt a dialogue.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

Pretoria began a more stringent crackdown on minority party activities - it detained 20,000 people without trial,<ref name="independent biography"/> but the pressure from the international community was too great. Mandela ultimately decided to negotiate with the white government without telling his fellow inmates and party-members, saying, “My comrades did not have the advantages that I had of brushing shoulders with the V.I.P.’s who came here, the judges, the minister of justice, the commissioner of prisons, and I had come to overcome my own prejudice towards them ... So I decided to present my colleagues with a fait accompli.”<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

In December 1988, as negotiations gathered momentum, and Mandela's health deteriorated (he had prostate surgery while in prison), he was moved to the Victor Verster Prison - where he could be better cared for and live in more comfortable conditions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> In February 1990, President Frederik Willem de Klerk legalized the ANC and shortly after released Mandela; two weeks later Mandela became the Deputy President of the ANC.<ref name="independent biography"/>

===Release and election===
Negotiations between Mandela, the ANC and the ruling party continued until eventually free elections were agreed upon, in exchange for a share of power for opposition parties and a guarantee that whites would not be threatened with reprisals.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In the ensuing elections of April 1994, the ANC won 62% of the vote - ensuring that Mandela would be the next President of South Africa.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

==Presidency==
Though elected leader, Mandela was frequently deferring to others in leadership. De Klerk and Thabo Mbeki - the latter selected by the ANC - were Mandela's deputy presidents, and privately he left most appointments and practical decisions to Mbeki, referring to himself as "head of state" rather than "head of government".<ref name="independent biography"/> When De Klerk left the coalition, Mbeki was allowed more power - sometimes presiding over the cabinet.

Mandela was not as effective in elected office as he was revolutionary leader. Prior to his election - he sought the financial support of 20 industrialists to build up the ANC. When he took office, he allowed the industrialists to have unprecedented access to the executive - and favored his big donors over unions.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela also made minimal progress towards the modest goals he had set on housing, education and jobs.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> He failed to grab the lead at the dawn of the ensuing crisis of [[AIDS]]; refusing to acknowledge the unpopular subject at a time when contraceptives were considered [[taboo]] in South Africa.<ref name="independent biography"/>

Still, Mandela continued to act as a unifier among races - as in 1995 when he shook the hand of Francois Pienaar - the Springbok [[rugby]] captain - significant due to rugby's strong association with Afrikaners - whose leaders strongly supported apartheid.<ref name="telegraph biography"/><ref>{{cite web|title=Mandela - Francois Pienaar’s tribute: short, simple, apt|format=HTML|work=Daily Maverick|author=Muller, Antoinette|date=December 12, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013|url=http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-12-12-mandela-francois-pienaars-tribute-short-simple-apt/#.UrM_sJGilDI}}</ref>

==Post-Presidency==
===Reaction to successor===
Mandela rarely directly criticized his successor, Mbeki, but privately criticized his inability to take criticism and his conspiratorial view of the world.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> When Mbeki publicly doubted the scientifically proven cause of AIDS, Mandela finally spoke out on the issue - citing the importance of condoms and contraceptives.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

===Reaction to global affairs===
[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|Nelson Mandela with [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]]]]

===Health problems and death===
Mandela suffered from a lung infection. From December 2012 to April 2013 he remained in a hospital. He had a procedure to remove a [[gallstone]].<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/31/south-africa-mandela-remains-in-hospital/|title=Mandela remains hospitalized for lung infection, spokesman says|language=English|format=HTML|date=March 31, 2013}}</ref> On April 6, 2013 he left the hospital,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/06/nelson-mandela-discharged-from-hospital-south-africa-says/|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela discharged from the hospital, South Africa says|language=English|publisher=Fox News|work=Associated Press|date=April 06, 2013}}</ref> but returned again in June 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/08/south-africa-mandela-taken-to-hospital/|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela remains in hospital with recurring lung infection|language=English|date=June 09, 2013}}</ref> Mandela was in a critical condition for a long time.<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=TownHall|url=http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/06/23/south-africa-mandela-in-critical-condition-n1625432|format=HTML|language=English|title=South Africa: Nelson Mandela in critical condition}}</ref>

On July 4th, 2013, it was revealed that court documents indicated that Nelson Mandela was on life support and was being kept alive by a breathing machine and faced "impending death"; he was kept in the hospital from June 8th, 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/04/nelson-mandela-africa-apartheid/2489137/|format=HTML|work=Associated Press|publisher=USA Today|author=Straziuso, Jason|date=July 4, 2013|title=Nelson Mandela on life support, court documents show}}</ref> to December 5th, 2013, when he died.

====Global reaction and funeral====
[[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] both spoke at Mandela's funeral - which was marred by a fake sign language interpreter, who was later admitted to a psychiatric hospital.<ref>{{cite web|work=NBC News|publisher=NBC|author=Smith, Alexander|title='Fake' interpreter from Mandela event is admitted to psychiatric hospital: report|format=HTML|language=English|url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21969085-fake-interpreter-from-mandela-event-is-admitted-to-psychiatric-hospital-report?lite|date=December 19, 2013}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mandela, Nelson}}

[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]
[[Category:Sakharov laureates]]

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-26T01:33:21Z

Iduan: Canvassing isn't that

==Problems==
This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence
:"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."
This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also
:"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."
might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

==Still problems==
I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:
*Lee Oswald
*Sirhan Sirhan
*James Earl Ray
*Charles Manson
*Timothy McVeigh
*John Hinckley
*Charles Whitman
*Seung-Hui Cho
*Eric Harris
*Dylan Klebold
*James Holmes
*Adam Lanza
*Karl Pierson
I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?
*If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
*If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name ''only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?'' to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's ''Origin of Species''. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_15.pdf], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.
:Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.
:In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.
As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.
:However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have a better look.
:As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.
:Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:
*defines who 'everyone' is
*defines the way this 'everyone' use it.
:Ad. "''why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?''"
::Because:
*To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
*Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
*The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

''I suggest that you read the books in sources first''
::No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read ''In Sheep's Clothing'' or ''Character Disturbances'', though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

''You however claim these details are not important''
::What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

''You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is''
::No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

''To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic''
::Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only '''one''' such person?

''you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena''
::Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

''While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...''
::There is '''no''' description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.
''Supported by sources?''
::Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

::Ad.''"I give up."''
:::Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.
::Ad.''"Your article should be moved to essay space"''
:::Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.
::Ad.''"they are good books for laypeople"''
:::I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.
::Ad.''"Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."''
:::That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.
::Ad.''"I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"''
:::The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.
::Ad.''"your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page"''
:::That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.
::Ad.''"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."''
:::I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.
::Ad.''"I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."''
:::See my previous point.
::Ad.''"Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"''
:::I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.
::''"There is '''no''' description that follows. "''
:::Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.
::Ad.''"You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."''
:::You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:
*"The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
*" Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."
:::I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.
::''"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."''
:::See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.
I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --[[User:AK|AK]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Renaming the page==
OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.

While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".

A few quick comments:

*I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
*"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer. :-)
*I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he ''did'' write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)

So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:

In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:
*How did it start?
*Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?
Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists ''always must proceed from the information available to them at the time''. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.

Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.

So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== Notable ==

Guys this topic isn't notable - fork it into the George Simon article; leave the example out.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

::Which topic, please clarify. If you mean 'disturbed character', then please advise what criterion you are using, the argument [[Ipse dixit]] (ca 'because I said') is not the best one, IMHO. You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to [[Expelled|losses of jobs]] just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100 administrator] hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the [[Question evolution campaign]] as well?--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:43, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::One more note, I do not like the bastardization of the article you did and I was thinking whether you both are not some saboteurs here at CP that do more activities on talk pages and destroying the articles than being productive and creative. I've remembered there was a rule applied to such users and now it seems I'm not the only one having that impression, just have a look: "It is implicit given that it is a news story, and the change is also verifiable by researching other stories. Are you more interested in what the truth is, or in debating debate tactics? Please give it a rest - I count more than 50 consecutive talk-page edits from your account, which is far more than the 90/10 rule would typically allow.--Aschlafly 21:30, 7 December 2013 (EST)" I strongly agree with this opinion.--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== This is a terrible article ==

This article is an embarrassment. I understand Conservative is a friend of a friend of the author - so be clear that that is why it's being allowed. There's no notability here - it's an article about a supposed personality diagnosis that one author has used in his book - and then the author attempts to ascribe that diagnosis to a person - with no sources supporting that diagnosis claim - only his decision making.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Ad. ''The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.''
::::::I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.
::::::*This erasing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychiatry&diff=1071903&oldid=1071901 edit of yours] testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called [[schizophrenia]] (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
::::::*In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from [[Kerkut’s student syndrome]] ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=323 “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”]. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" [[Nature (journal)|planet Vulcan]], to establish [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361 homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"]; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’"]. You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated [[Gnosticism#Gnostic_Elitism|neo-gnostic elite]] and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
::::::*You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what [[psychological manipulation|end justifies your means]], at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
::::::*Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use [[Weak analogy|false analogy]]. We do not say here ''"John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder"'' but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:
:::::::*limits
:::::::*confrontation
:::::::*and most especially correction. For example, [http://creation.com/anyone-for-tennis this article] could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.
::::::::"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"
::::::*You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:
:::::::Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?
:::::::Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.
::::::*If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
::::::*As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS canvassing]: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--[[User:AK|AK]] 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - '''you yourself say psychology is more of an art than an exact science - so if you are making a diagnosis - probably is all you can say'''. But again, per User:Conservative's strong relationship with you - I'm stepping back from this article. Fortunately, though User:Conservative and I have always been able to work together on projects, we frequently don't overlap in interests - and your interest seem more comparable to his than mine, so we shouldn't have a problem. Also - since you don't understand canvassing - I came here because SamHB made a point about you on the main page talk - I wasn't involved in the article at first, so that's not canvassing. Good attempt though - perhaps once you're here longer you'll better understand the rules. Feel free to engage in [[last wordism]] from here.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-26T01:29:43Z

Iduan: bold

==Problems==
This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence
:"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."
This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also
:"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."
might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

==Still problems==
I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:
*Lee Oswald
*Sirhan Sirhan
*James Earl Ray
*Charles Manson
*Timothy McVeigh
*John Hinckley
*Charles Whitman
*Seung-Hui Cho
*Eric Harris
*Dylan Klebold
*James Holmes
*Adam Lanza
*Karl Pierson
I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?
*If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
*If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name ''only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?'' to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's ''Origin of Species''. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_15.pdf], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.
:Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.
:In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.
As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.
:However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have a better look.
:As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.
:Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:
*defines who 'everyone' is
*defines the way this 'everyone' use it.
:Ad. "''why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?''"
::Because:
*To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
*Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
*The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

''I suggest that you read the books in sources first''
::No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read ''In Sheep's Clothing'' or ''Character Disturbances'', though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

''You however claim these details are not important''
::What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

''You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is''
::No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

''To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic''
::Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only '''one''' such person?

''you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena''
::Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

''While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...''
::There is '''no''' description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.
''Supported by sources?''
::Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

::Ad.''"I give up."''
:::Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.
::Ad.''"Your article should be moved to essay space"''
:::Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.
::Ad.''"they are good books for laypeople"''
:::I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.
::Ad.''"Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."''
:::That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.
::Ad.''"I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"''
:::The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.
::Ad.''"your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page"''
:::That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.
::Ad.''"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."''
:::I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.
::Ad.''"I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."''
:::See my previous point.
::Ad.''"Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"''
:::I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.
::''"There is '''no''' description that follows. "''
:::Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.
::Ad.''"You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."''
:::You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:
*"The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
*" Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."
:::I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.
::''"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."''
:::See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.
I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --[[User:AK|AK]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Renaming the page==
OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.

While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".

A few quick comments:

*I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
*"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer. :-)
*I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he ''did'' write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)

So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:

In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:
*How did it start?
*Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?
Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists ''always must proceed from the information available to them at the time''. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.

Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.

So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== Notable ==

Guys this topic isn't notable - fork it into the George Simon article; leave the example out.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

::Which topic, please clarify. If you mean 'disturbed character', then please advise what criterion you are using, the argument [[Ipse dixit]] (ca 'because I said') is not the best one, IMHO. You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to [[Expelled|losses of jobs]] just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100 administrator] hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the [[Question evolution campaign]] as well?--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:43, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::One more note, I do not like the bastardization of the article you did and I was thinking whether you both are not some saboteurs here at CP that do more activities on talk pages and destroying the articles than being productive and creative. I've remembered there was a rule applied to such users and now it seems I'm not the only one having that impression, just have a look: "It is implicit given that it is a news story, and the change is also verifiable by researching other stories. Are you more interested in what the truth is, or in debating debate tactics? Please give it a rest - I count more than 50 consecutive talk-page edits from your account, which is far more than the 90/10 rule would typically allow.--Aschlafly 21:30, 7 December 2013 (EST)" I strongly agree with this opinion.--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== This is a terrible article ==

This article is an embarrassment. I understand Conservative is a friend of a friend of the author - so be clear that that is why it's being allowed. There's no notability here - it's an article about a supposed personality diagnosis that one author has used in his book - and then the author attempts to ascribe that diagnosis to a person - with no sources supporting that diagnosis claim - only his decision making.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Ad. ''The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.''
::::::I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.
::::::*This erasing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychiatry&diff=1071903&oldid=1071901 edit of yours] testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called [[schizophrenia]] (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
::::::*In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from [[Kerkut’s student syndrome]] ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=323 “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”]. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" [[Nature (journal)|planet Vulcan]], to establish [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361 homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"]; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’"]. You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated [[Gnosticism#Gnostic_Elitism|neo-gnostic elite]] and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
::::::*You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what [[psychological manipulation|end justifies your means]], at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
::::::*Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use [[Weak analogy|false analogy]]. We do not say here ''"John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder"'' but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:
:::::::*limits
:::::::*confrontation
:::::::*and most especially correction. For example, [http://creation.com/anyone-for-tennis this article] could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.
::::::::"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"
::::::*You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:
:::::::Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?
:::::::Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.
::::::*If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
::::::*As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS canvassing]: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--[[User:AK|AK]] 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - '''you yourself say psychology is more of an art than an exact science - so if you are making a diagnosis - probably is all you can say'''. But again, per User:Conservative's strong relationship with you - I'm stepping back from this article. Fortunately, though User:Conservative and I have always been able to work together on projects, we frequently don't overlap in interests - and your interest seem more comparable to his than mine, so we shouldn't have a problem. Feel free to engage in last wordism from here.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-26T01:24:24Z

Iduan: rephrase

==Problems==
This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence
:"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."
This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also
:"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."
might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

==Still problems==
I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:
*Lee Oswald
*Sirhan Sirhan
*James Earl Ray
*Charles Manson
*Timothy McVeigh
*John Hinckley
*Charles Whitman
*Seung-Hui Cho
*Eric Harris
*Dylan Klebold
*James Holmes
*Adam Lanza
*Karl Pierson
I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?
*If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
*If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name ''only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?'' to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's ''Origin of Species''. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_15.pdf], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.
:Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.
:In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.
As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.
:However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have a better look.
:As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.
:Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:
*defines who 'everyone' is
*defines the way this 'everyone' use it.
:Ad. "''why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?''"
::Because:
*To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
*Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
*The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

''I suggest that you read the books in sources first''
::No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read ''In Sheep's Clothing'' or ''Character Disturbances'', though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

''You however claim these details are not important''
::What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

''You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is''
::No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

''To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic''
::Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only '''one''' such person?

''you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena''
::Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

''While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...''
::There is '''no''' description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.
''Supported by sources?''
::Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

::Ad.''"I give up."''
:::Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.
::Ad.''"Your article should be moved to essay space"''
:::Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.
::Ad.''"they are good books for laypeople"''
:::I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.
::Ad.''"Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."''
:::That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.
::Ad.''"I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"''
:::The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.
::Ad.''"your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page"''
:::That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.
::Ad.''"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."''
:::I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.
::Ad.''"I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."''
:::See my previous point.
::Ad.''"Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"''
:::I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.
::''"There is '''no''' description that follows. "''
:::Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.
::Ad.''"You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."''
:::You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:
*"The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
*" Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."
:::I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.
::''"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."''
:::See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.
I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --[[User:AK|AK]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Renaming the page==
OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.

While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".

A few quick comments:

*I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
*"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer. :-)
*I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he ''did'' write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)

So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:

In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:
*How did it start?
*Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?
Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists ''always must proceed from the information available to them at the time''. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.

Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.

So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== Notable ==

Guys this topic isn't notable - fork it into the George Simon article; leave the example out.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

::Which topic, please clarify. If you mean 'disturbed character', then please advise what criterion you are using, the argument [[Ipse dixit]] (ca 'because I said') is not the best one, IMHO. You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to [[Expelled|losses of jobs]] just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100 administrator] hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the [[Question evolution campaign]] as well?--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:43, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::One more note, I do not like the bastardization of the article you did and I was thinking whether you both are not some saboteurs here at CP that do more activities on talk pages and destroying the articles than being productive and creative. I've remembered there was a rule applied to such users and now it seems I'm not the only one having that impression, just have a look: "It is implicit given that it is a news story, and the change is also verifiable by researching other stories. Are you more interested in what the truth is, or in debating debate tactics? Please give it a rest - I count more than 50 consecutive talk-page edits from your account, which is far more than the 90/10 rule would typically allow.--Aschlafly 21:30, 7 December 2013 (EST)" I strongly agree with this opinion.--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== This is a terrible article ==

This article is an embarrassment. I understand Conservative is a friend of a friend of the author - so be clear that that is why it's being allowed. There's no notability here - it's an article about a supposed personality diagnosis that one author has used in his book - and then the author attempts to ascribe that diagnosis to a person - with no sources supporting that diagnosis claim - only his decision making.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Ad. ''The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.''
::::::I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.
::::::*This erasing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychiatry&diff=1071903&oldid=1071901 edit of yours] testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called [[schizophrenia]] (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
::::::*In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from [[Kerkut’s student syndrome]] ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=323 “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”]. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" [[Nature (journal)|planet Vulcan]], to establish [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361 homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"]; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’"]. You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated [[Gnosticism#Gnostic_Elitism|neo-gnostic elite]] and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
::::::*You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what [[psychological manipulation|end justifies your means]], at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
::::::*Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use [[Weak analogy|false analogy]]. We do not say here ''"John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder"'' but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:
:::::::*limits
:::::::*confrontation
:::::::*and most especially correction. For example, [http://creation.com/anyone-for-tennis this article] could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.
::::::::"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"
::::::*You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:
:::::::Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?
:::::::Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.
::::::*If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
::::::*As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS canvassing]: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--[[User:AK|AK]] 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - even per your definition of psychology as more of an art than an exact science - probably is all you can say. But again, per User:Conservative's strong relationship with you - I'm stepping back from this article. Fortunately, though User:Conservative and I have always been able to work together on projects, we frequently don't overlap in interests - and your interest seem more comparable to his than mine, so we shouldn't have a problem. Feel free to engage in last wordism from here.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-26T01:21:04Z

Iduan: probably

==Problems==
This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence
:"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."
This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also
:"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."
might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

==Still problems==
I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:
*Lee Oswald
*Sirhan Sirhan
*James Earl Ray
*Charles Manson
*Timothy McVeigh
*John Hinckley
*Charles Whitman
*Seung-Hui Cho
*Eric Harris
*Dylan Klebold
*James Holmes
*Adam Lanza
*Karl Pierson
I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?
*If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
*If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name ''only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?'' to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's ''Origin of Species''. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_15.pdf], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.
:Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.
:In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.
As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.
:However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have a better look.
:As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.
:Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:
*defines who 'everyone' is
*defines the way this 'everyone' use it.
:Ad. "''why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?''"
::Because:
*To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
*Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
*The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

''I suggest that you read the books in sources first''
::No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read ''In Sheep's Clothing'' or ''Character Disturbances'', though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

''You however claim these details are not important''
::What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

''You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is''
::No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

''To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic''
::Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only '''one''' such person?

''you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena''
::Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

''While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...''
::There is '''no''' description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.
''Supported by sources?''
::Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

::Ad.''"I give up."''
:::Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.
::Ad.''"Your article should be moved to essay space"''
:::Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.
::Ad.''"they are good books for laypeople"''
:::I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.
::Ad.''"Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."''
:::That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.
::Ad.''"I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"''
:::The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.
::Ad.''"your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page"''
:::That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.
::Ad.''"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."''
:::I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.
::Ad.''"I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."''
:::See my previous point.
::Ad.''"Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"''
:::I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.
::''"There is '''no''' description that follows. "''
:::Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.
::Ad.''"You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."''
:::You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:
*"The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
*" Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."
:::I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.
::''"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."''
:::See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.
I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --[[User:AK|AK]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Renaming the page==
OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.

While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".

A few quick comments:

*I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
*"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer. :-)
*I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he ''did'' write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)

So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:

In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:
*How did it start?
*Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?
Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists ''always must proceed from the information available to them at the time''. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.

Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.

So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== Notable ==

Guys this topic isn't notable - fork it into the George Simon article; leave the example out.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

::Which topic, please clarify. If you mean 'disturbed character', then please advise what criterion you are using, the argument [[Ipse dixit]] (ca 'because I said') is not the best one, IMHO. You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to [[Expelled|losses of jobs]] just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100 administrator] hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the [[Question evolution campaign]] as well?--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:43, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::One more note, I do not like the bastardization of the article you did and I was thinking whether you both are not some saboteurs here at CP that do more activities on talk pages and destroying the articles than being productive and creative. I've remembered there was a rule applied to such users and now it seems I'm not the only one having that impression, just have a look: "It is implicit given that it is a news story, and the change is also verifiable by researching other stories. Are you more interested in what the truth is, or in debating debate tactics? Please give it a rest - I count more than 50 consecutive talk-page edits from your account, which is far more than the 90/10 rule would typically allow.--Aschlafly 21:30, 7 December 2013 (EST)" I strongly agree with this opinion.--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== This is a terrible article ==

This article is an embarrassment. I understand Conservative is a friend of a friend of the author - so be clear that that is why it's being allowed. There's no notability here - it's an article about a supposed personality diagnosis that one author has used in his book - and then the author attempts to ascribe that diagnosis to a person - with no sources supporting that diagnosis claim - only his decision making.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Ad. ''The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.''
::::::I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.
::::::*This erasing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychiatry&diff=1071903&oldid=1071901 edit of yours] testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called [[schizophrenia]] (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
::::::*In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from [[Kerkut’s student syndrome]] ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=323 “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”]. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" [[Nature (journal)|planet Vulcan]], to establish [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361 homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"]; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’"]. You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated [[Gnosticism#Gnostic_Elitism|neo-gnostic elite]] and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
::::::*You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what [[psychological manipulation|end justifies your means]], at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
::::::*Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use [[Weak analogy|false analogy]]. We do not say here ''"John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder"'' but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:
:::::::*limits
:::::::*confrontation
:::::::*and most especially correction. For example, [http://creation.com/anyone-for-tennis this article] could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.
::::::::"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"
::::::*You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:
:::::::Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?
:::::::Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.
::::::*If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
::::::*As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS canvassing]: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--[[User:AK|AK]] 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - even per your definition of psychology as more of an art than an exact science - probably is all you can say. But again, per your "special relationship" with User:Conservative, I'm stepping back from this article, because he seems very interested in you getting credit for work on Conservapedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-26T01:19:14Z

Iduan: Conservative is very interested in you - I'm not involving myself

==Problems==
This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence
:"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."
This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also
:"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."
might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

==Still problems==
I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:
*Lee Oswald
*Sirhan Sirhan
*James Earl Ray
*Charles Manson
*Timothy McVeigh
*John Hinckley
*Charles Whitman
*Seung-Hui Cho
*Eric Harris
*Dylan Klebold
*James Holmes
*Adam Lanza
*Karl Pierson
I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?
*If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
*If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name ''only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?'' to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's ''Origin of Species''. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_15.pdf], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.
:Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.
:In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.
As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.
:However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have a better look.
:As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.
:Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:
*defines who 'everyone' is
*defines the way this 'everyone' use it.
:Ad. "''why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?''"
::Because:
*To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
*Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
*The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

''I suggest that you read the books in sources first''
::No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read ''In Sheep's Clothing'' or ''Character Disturbances'', though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

''You however claim these details are not important''
::What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

''You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is''
::No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

''To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic''
::Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only '''one''' such person?

''you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena''
::Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

''While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...''
::There is '''no''' description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.
''Supported by sources?''
::Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

::Ad.''"I give up."''
:::Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.
::Ad.''"Your article should be moved to essay space"''
:::Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.
::Ad.''"they are good books for laypeople"''
:::I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.
::Ad.''"Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."''
:::That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.
::Ad.''"I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"''
:::The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.
::Ad.''"your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page"''
:::That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.
::Ad.''"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."''
:::I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.
::Ad.''"I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."''
:::See my previous point.
::Ad.''"Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"''
:::I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.
::''"There is '''no''' description that follows. "''
:::Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.
::Ad.''"You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."''
:::You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:
*"The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
*" Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."
:::I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.
::''"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."''
:::See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.
I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --[[User:AK|AK]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)

==Renaming the page==
OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.

While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".

A few quick comments:

*I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
*"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer. :-)
*I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he ''did'' write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)

So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:

In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:
*How did it start?
*Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?
Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists ''always must proceed from the information available to them at the time''. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.

Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.

So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== Notable ==

Guys this topic isn't notable - fork it into the George Simon article; leave the example out.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

::Which topic, please clarify. If you mean 'disturbed character', then please advise what criterion you are using, the argument [[Ipse dixit]] (ca 'because I said') is not the best one, IMHO. You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to [[Expelled|losses of jobs]] just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100 administrator] hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the [[Question evolution campaign]] as well?--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:43, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::One more note, I do not like the bastardization of the article you did and I was thinking whether you both are not some saboteurs here at CP that do more activities on talk pages and destroying the articles than being productive and creative. I've remembered there was a rule applied to such users and now it seems I'm not the only one having that impression, just have a look: "It is implicit given that it is a news story, and the change is also verifiable by researching other stories. Are you more interested in what the truth is, or in debating debate tactics? Please give it a rest - I count more than 50 consecutive talk-page edits from your account, which is far more than the 90/10 rule would typically allow.--Aschlafly 21:30, 7 December 2013 (EST)" I strongly agree with this opinion.--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== This is a terrible article ==

This article is an embarrassment. I understand Conservative is a friend of a friend of the author - so be clear that that is why it's being allowed. There's no notability here - it's an article about a supposed personality diagnosis that one author has used in his book - and then the author attempts to ascribe that diagnosis to a person - with no sources supporting that diagnosis claim - only his decision making.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Ad. ''The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.''
::::::I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.
::::::*This erasing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychiatry&diff=1071903&oldid=1071901 edit of yours] testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called [[schizophrenia]] (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
::::::*In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from [[Kerkut’s student syndrome]] ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=323 “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”]. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" [[Nature (journal)|planet Vulcan]], to establish [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361 homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"]; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’"]. You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated [[Gnosticism#Gnostic_Elitism|neo-gnostic elite]] and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
::::::*You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what [[psychological manipulation|end justifies your means]], at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
::::::*Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use [[Weak analogy|false analogy]]. We do not say here ''"John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder"'' but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:
:::::::*limits
:::::::*confrontation
:::::::*and most especially correction. For example, [http://creation.com/anyone-for-tennis this article] could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.
::::::::"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"
::::::*You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:
:::::::Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?
:::::::Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.
::::::*If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
::::::*As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS canvassing]: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--[[User:AK|AK]] 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. But again, per your "special relationship" with User:Conservative, I'm stepping back from this article, because he seems very interested in you getting credit for work on Conservapedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T23:31:39Z

Iduan: fix

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too. What I'm suggesting is that there's not really consistency in our deciding who is underrated or overrated - the only thing Brady and Manning have in common is they both were higher on their team's depth chart than Tim Tebow. So are we just looking for reasons to call them underrated? If playoff success is your standard - Brady shouldn't be on this list.
{|
!Player
!Designation
!Win-Loss Percentage
!Championships
!MVPs
!QBR
|-
!Tom Brady
|Overrated
|76%
|3
|2
|95.9
|-
!Peyton Manning
|Overrated
|67%
|1
|4
|97
|-
!Tim Tebow
|Underrated
|56%
|0
|0
|75.3
|}
::(Fairly, QBR doesn't account for running stats - but the other numbers speak for themselves.) Also is Manning overrated? Because every article I read on him rags on him for not being the same player in the cold and his lack of playoff success. In fact he recently got angry at a press conference when confronted with the disparity in his numbers. The media reports on this.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:::Your chart is missing the the most important factor: how much the person is praised and hyped by the media. That is what "overrated" refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 22 December 2013 (EST)
::::I just mentioned that Manning's flaws are mentioned. And their statistics show that they're some of the best quarterbacks ever - and Brady's playoff success is undeniable. Literally the only reason they're on this list is because they started ahead of a guy with a 9-7 record. Also how many negative stories have we run on Tebow? Perhaps he is overrated by our coverage? Again, this just seems like a grudge list. It just doesn't seem to have credibility to me.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:49, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::::Tebow was repeatedly criticized by the [[lamestream media]], to an absurd extent. So he wasn't overrated. But every year, Manning racks up meaningless statistical achievements, only to fail in the playoffs. Yet overhype by the liberal media continues about him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::But his inability to win more than one Super Bowl is the conventional wisdom - it's not some inspired maverick opinion - that is the opinion. That's what the "liberal sports media" says about him. Were you around two weeks ago when literally every article was about how he couldn't throw in the cold? Just like Dan Marino is remembered as a great QB who couldn't win a Super Bowl (although Manning has won one). I would also say that we praised Tebow - someone who has a 9-7 career record and is 1-1 in the playoffs - to an absurd extent, but fair enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T23:29:13Z

Iduan: that's what the media says? but fair enough

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too. What I'm suggesting is that there's not really consistency in our deciding who is underrated or overrated - the only thing Brady and Manning have in common is they both were higher on their team's depth chart than Tim Tebow. So are we just looking for reasons to call them underrated? If playoff success is your standard - Brady shouldn't be on this list.
{|
!Player
!Designation
!Win-Loss Percentage
!Championships
!MVPs
!QBR
|-
!Tom Brady
|Overrated
|76%
|3
|2
|95.9
|-
!Peyton Manning
|Overrated
|67%
|1
|4
|97
|-
!Tim Tebow
|Underrated
|56%
|0
|0
|75.3
|}
::(Fairly, QBR doesn't account for running stats - but the other numbers speak for themselves.) Also is Manning overrated? Because every article I read on him rags on him for not being the same player in the cold and his lack of playoff success. In fact he recently got angry at a press conference when confronted with the disparity in his numbers. The media reports on this.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:::Your chart is missing the the most important factor: how much the person is praised and hyped by the media. That is what "overrated" refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 22 December 2013 (EST)
::::I just mentioned that Manning's flaws are mentioned. And their statistics show that they're some of the best quarterbacks ever - and Brady's playoff success is undeniable. Literally the only reason they're on this list is because they started ahead of a guy with a 9-7 record. Also how many negative stories have we run on Tebow? Perhaps he is overrated by our coverage? Again, this just seems like a grudge list. It just doesn't seem to have credibility to me.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:49, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::::Tebow was repeatedly criticized by the [[lamestream media]], to an absurd extent. So he wasn't overrated. But every year, Manning racks up meaningless statistical achievements, only to fail in the playoffs. Yet overhype by the liberal media continues about him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::But his inability to win more than one Super Bowl is the conventional wisdom - it's not some underdog opinion - that is the opinion. That's what the "liberal sports media" says about him. Were you around two weeks ago when literally every article was about how he couldn't throw in the cold? I would also say that we praised Tebow - someone who has a 9-7 career record and is 1-1 in the playoffs - to an absurd extent, but fair enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Nelson Mandela

2013-12-22T23:05:53Z

Iduan: last name first

{{Officeholder
|name=Nelson Mandela
|image=Mandela2.jpg
|party=[[African National Congress]] 
|spouse=Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944–1957) Winnie Madikizela (1958–1996) Graça Machel (1998-)
|religion=[[Methodism]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=South Africa
|number=
|terms=10 May 1994 – 14 June 1999
|vp=[[Thabo Mbeki]] [[F. W. de Klerk]]
|preceded=F. W. de Klerk
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thabo Mbeki]]
}}
}}
'''Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela''' (July 18, 1918 - December 5th, 2013) was a [[South Africa]]n anti-apartheid leader, politician and [[philanthropist]] who served as President of South Africa from 1994-1999. For his life Mandela received more than 250 honors, including the 1993 [[Nobel Peace Prize]], the US [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] (from [[George W. Bush]]), the Soviet Order of Lenin and the Bharat Ratna.
==Early life==
Mandela was born Rolihlahla Mandela on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, to Nonqaphi Nosekeni and Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation.<ref name="NYT obituary">{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela_obit.html?pagewanted=1&ref=international-home|work=The New York Times|author=Keller, Bill|date=December 5, 2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|title=Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> When his father died at nine Nelson was taken in as a ward to Jongintaba Dalindyebo.<ref name="official biography">{{cite web|work=Nelson Mandela Foundation|title=Biography|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=12-10-2013|url=http://www.nelsonmandela.org/content/page/biography}}</ref>

===Education===
Mandela was sent to a [[Methodist]]<ref name="independent biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nelson-mandela-life-story-a-long-walk-to-immortality--the-life-and-times-of-madiba-8406457.html|work=The Independent|language=English|country=UK|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela biography: A long walk to immortality - the life and times of Madiba|author=Sampson, Anthony}}</ref> mission school for his primary education,<ref name="AllAfrica">{{cite web|url=http://allafrica.com/stories/201312091064.html|work=AllAfrica|title=South Africa: Biography of Nelson Mandela|date=12-06-2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> followed by time at Clarkebury Boarding Institute and Healdtown.<ref name="official biography"/> He began studying for a [[bachelor's degree]] at University College of Fort Hare, the only residential college for [[blacks]] in South Africa,<ref name="NYT obituary"/> but, along with Oliver Tambo,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> was expelled for joining a student [[protest]].<ref name="official biography"/> Upon returning to his village, as retribution,<ref name="official biography"/> Mandela's family selected a bride for him and his cousin, Justice; the two fled the family - and the prospect of leadership in [[tribal]] government - for [[Johannesburg, South Africa]].<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> There he worked in gold mines as a guard, but was fired when his superior discovered he was a runaway.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela would complete his bachelor's degree at the University of South Africa in 1943 and return to Fort Hare for his graduation.<ref name="official biography"/>

==Pre-imprisonment career==
===Work experience, early political activism===
In Johannesburg, Mandela was introduced to Walter Sisulu, a [[real estate]] businessman and a prominent member of the [[African National Congress]] (ANC) - a black liberation party opposed the extreme segregation called [[apartheid]]; <ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid|title=Apartheid|work=History|publisher=A&E Television Networks, LLC|accessdate=December 18, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Sisulu arranged for Mandela to be articled to a white attorney, Lazar Sidelsky, while Mandela studied [[law]] part time at University of the Witwatersrand - though he would leave the school in 1948.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="official biography"/> Mandela began to follow Anton Lembede; he, along with Mandela, Tambo and Sisulu organized the radical A.N.C. Youth League, alienating some white sympathizers with their strong black national rhetoric.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> The Youth League was also critical of the "old guard" leadership of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I was angry at the white man, not at racism ... While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=left|width=300px}}
At this time, Mandela fell strongly onto the side of Africanism is the liberation debate between Africanism and nonracialism
in liberation theology, though his eventual embrace of nonracialism would define his later life and career.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> The ANC Youth League was also fiercely anti-[[communist]]; Mandela would break up Communist Party meetings - regarding Communism as foreign and non-Afircan and believing that blacks should liberate themselves.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> This philosophy changed with the victory of the Afrikaner National Party in 1948 in the all-white elections; the National Party had run on a platform of [[apartheid]] and strong anti-communism.<ref name="independent biography"/> The elections sparked the radicalization of the ANC<ref name="telegraph biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10503342/Nelson-Mandela-A-life-rich-in-drama-tragedy-triumph-and-reconciliation.html|work=The Telegraph|title=Nelson Mandela: A life rich in drama, tragedy, triumph and reconciliation|format=HTML|language=English|author= Holman, Michael|date=December 7, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> - in 1949 the Youth League's tactics of boycott, strike, civil disobedience and non-co-operation were adopted as official ANC policy, and older members were purged from leadership positions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela would assume leadership positions within the party - including President of the Youth League and National Volunteer-in-Chief of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>

In 1952, the ANC launched its first passive resistance - the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/> The Defiance Campaign was suppressed with legislation lead by the National Party; protests were met with arrests - including that of Mandela's in 1956 on charges of [[treason]] (one of 156 ANC leaders to be arrested that year).<ref name="independent biography"/> The court found that Mandela had consistently advised his adherers to not resort to violence, but he was found guilty of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act and given a suspended prison sentence.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela was also confined to Johannesburg for six months and prohibited from attending gatherings; during this time, Mandela, despite not completing his law degree, and Tambo set up the first black law partnership in South Africa;<ref name="NYT obituary"/> the firm helped black clients with their political and other legal difficulties.<ref name="independent biography"/>

In 1953, Mandela created the M-plan (named after him) - a contingency plan in case the ANC - like the Communist Party - was declared illegal. The M-plan detailed how the party could run underground, communicating with members without resorting to public meetings.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Throughout the fifties Mandela would be consistently banned, arrested and imprisoned.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> In 1960 - the more radical Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) broke away from the ANC; their tactics- though still peaceful - were more aggressive and were met with violence.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> On March 21, 1961 police killed 69 peaceful protestors in what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre; after this massacre both parties were banned.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

===Militarist leader===
The Sharpeville Massacre sparked a turning point for Mandela - he became convinced that the ANC needed to adopt a separate military wing, called Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation; Mandela was made commander-in-chief.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/> There is also evidence that Mandela joined the South African Communist Party and a member the party's Central Committee (though he denied it through his life) - presumably for contacts.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|work=Business Day Live|title=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|author= Marrian, Natasha|date=December 6, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
The new, violent, methods of the ANC were to destroy power plants and communications systems; the goal was that these acts would limit overseas investment. Mandela was adamant that the group not kill, but by the end of its 20 year campaign 63 people had been killed and 483 injured; the group was declared a [[terrorist]] group by the white South African government and the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8304153/Nelson-Mandelas-Spear-of-the-Nation-the-ANCs-armed-resistance.html|title=Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance|author=Laing, Aislinn|work=The Telegraph|format=HTML|language=English|date=February 5, 2011|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> Mandela left the country soon after the Spear of the Nation began its tactics, hoping to generate worldwide support and economic sanctions so that Pretoria might abandon apartheid.<ref name="independent biography"/> In 1962, Mandela was arrested after 17 months in hiding, charged with incitement to strike and illegally leaving the country.<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=right|width=300px}}
While serving, the South African police raided a farm near Rivonia - finding future plans of sabotage; Mandela and his colleagues were charged with organising sabotage and violent revolution as well as furthering the aims of communism; at his trial, Mandela declared his ideal of democracy in a four hour speech - concluding, "It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela acknowledged his crimes - that he was the commander of Spear of the Nation and that he had made alliances with Communists, but declared that he had turned to violence only when nonviolent means were foreclosed and likened his affiliation with Communists to Churchill’s cooperation with Stalin against Hitler.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Nelson also commented on his political evolution from black nationalist to multiracialist.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In part due to overwhelming pressure from the international community - including a near-unaminous vote by the [[United Nations]] - the lives of the accused were spared; Mandela and his colleagues were sentenced to life in prison.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

==Imprisonment==
Mandela became an elder statesman of the prison on Robben Island<ref name="telegraph biography"/> - where there were frequent clashes with prisoners and guards, he seemed above the fray; he was also singled out for cruelties. He was denied permission to attend the funerals of his mother and oldest son, and his wife endured persecution after being exiled from Johannesburg.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela and the prisoners initially turned down officers of release; he commented "Prisoners cannot enter into contracts - only free men can negotiate."<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela credited his time in prison with the cessation of his desire for vengeance, speaking of sympathetic white guards and National Party members who would attempt a dialogue.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

Pretoria began a more stringent crackdown on minority party activities - it detained 20,000 people without trial,<ref name="independent biography"/> but the pressure from the international community was too great. Mandela ultimately decided to negotiate with the white government without telling his fellow inmates and party-members, saying, “My comrades did not have the advantages that I had of brushing shoulders with the V.I.P.’s who came here, the judges, the minister of justice, the commissioner of prisons, and I had come to overcome my own prejudice towards them ... So I decided to present my colleagues with a fait accompli.”<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

In December 1988, as negotiations gathered momentum, and Mandela's health deteriorated (he had prostate surgery while in prison), he was moved to the Victor Verster Prison - where he could be better cared for and live in more comfortable conditions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> In February 1990, President Frederik Willem de Klerk legalized the ANC and shortly after released Mandela; two weeks later Mandela became the Deputy President of the ANC.<ref name="independent biography"/>

===Release and election===
Negotiations between Mandela, the ANC and the ruling party continued until eventually free elections were agreed upon, in exchange for a share of power for opposition parties and a guarantee that whites would not be threatened with reprisals.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In the ensuing elections of April 1994, the ANC won 62% of the vote - ensuring that Mandela would be the next President of South Africa.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

==Presidency==
Though elected leader, Mandela was frequently deferring to others in leadership. De Klerk and Thabo Mbeki - the latter selected by the ANC - were Mandela's deputy presidents, and privately he left most appointments and practical decisions to Mbeki, referring to himself as "head of state" rather than "head of government".<ref name="independent biography"/> When De Klerk left the coalition, Mbeki was allowed more power - sometimes presiding over the cabinet.

Mandela was not as effective in elected office as he was revolutionary leader. Prior to his election - he sought the financial support of 20 industrialists to build up the ANC. When he took office, he allowed the industrialists to have unprecedented access to the executive - and favored his big donors over unions.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela also made minimal progress towards the modest goals he had set on housing, education and jobs.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> He failed to grab the lead at the dawn of the ensuing crisis of [[AIDS]]; refusing to acknowledge the unpopular subject at a time when contraceptives were considered [[taboo]] in South Africa.<ref name="independent biography"/>

Still, Mandela continued to act as a unifier among races - as in 1995 when he shook the hand of Francois Pienaar - the Springbok [[rugby]] captain - significant due to rugby's strong association with Afrikaners - whose leaders strongly supported apartheid.<ref name="telegraph biography"/><ref>{{cite web|title=Mandela - Francois Pienaar’s tribute: short, simple, apt|format=HTML|work=Daily Maverick|author=Muller, Antoinette|date=December 12, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013|url=http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-12-12-mandela-francois-pienaars-tribute-short-simple-apt/#.UrM_sJGilDI}}</ref>

==Post-Presidency==
===Reaction to successor===
Mandela rarely directly criticized his successor, Mbeki, but privately criticized his inability to take criticism and his conspiratorial view of the world.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> When Mbeki publicly doubted the scientifically proven cause of AIDS, Mandela finally spoke out on the issue - citing the importance of condoms and contraceptives.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

===Reaction to global affairs===
[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|Nelson Mandela with [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]]]]

===Health problems and death===
Mandela suffered from a lung infection. From December 2012 to April 2013 he remained in a hospital. He had a procedure to remove a [[gallstone]].<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/31/south-africa-mandela-remains-in-hospital/|title=Mandela remains hospitalized for lung infection, spokesman says|language=English|format=HTML|date=March 31, 2013}}</ref> On April 6, 2013 he left the hospital,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/06/nelson-mandela-discharged-from-hospital-south-africa-says/|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela discharged from the hospital, South Africa says|language=English|publisher=Fox News|work=Associated Press|date=April 06, 2013}}</ref> but returned again in June 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/08/south-africa-mandela-taken-to-hospital/|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela remains in hospital with recurring lung infection|language=English|date=June 09, 2013}}</ref> Mandela was in a critical condition for a long time.<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=TownHall|url=http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/06/23/south-africa-mandela-in-critical-condition-n1625432|format=HTML|language=English|title=South Africa: Nelson Mandela in critical condition}}</ref>

On July 4th, 2013, it was revealed that court documents indicated that Nelson Mandela was on life support and was being kept alive by a breathing machine and faced "impending death"; he was kept in the hospital from June 8th, 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/04/nelson-mandela-africa-apartheid/2489137/|format=HTML|work=Associated Press|publisher=USA Today|author=Straziuso, Jason|date=July 4, 2013|title=Nelson Mandela on life support, court documents show}}</ref> to December 5th, 2013, when he died.

====Global reaction and funeral====
[[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] both spoke at Mandela's funeral - which was marred by a fake sign language interpreter, who was later admitted to a psychiatry hospital.<ref>{{cite web|work=NBC News|publisher=NBC|author=Smith, Alexander|title='Fake' interpreter from Mandela event is admitted to psychiatric hospital: report|format=HTML|language=English|url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21969085-fake-interpreter-from-mandela-event-is-admitted-to-psychiatric-hospital-report?lite|date=December 19, 2013}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mandela, Nelson}}

[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]
[[Category:Sakharov laureates]]

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T22:50:58Z

Iduan: just no credibility

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T22:49:21Z

Iduan: perhaps tebow is overrated by our coverage then? fixed table

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too. What I'm suggesting is that there's not really consistency in our deciding who is underrated or overrated - the only thing Brady and Manning have in common is they both were higher on their team's depth chart than Tim Tebow. So are we just looking for reasons to call them underrated? If playoff success is your standard - Brady shouldn't be on this list.
{|
!Player
!Designation
!Win-Loss Percentage
!Championships
!MVPs
!QBR
|-
!Tom Brady
|Overrated
|76%
|3
|2
|95.9
|-
!Peyton Manning
|Overrated
|67%
|1
|4
|97
|-
!Tim Tebow
|Underrated
|56%
|0
|0
|75.3
|}
::(Fairly, QBR doesn't account for running stats - but the other numbers speak for themselves.) Also is Manning overrated? Because every article I read on him rags on him for not being the same player in the cold and his lack of playoff success. In fact he recently got angry at a press conference when confronted with the disparity in his numbers. The media reports on this.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:::Your chart is missing the the most important factor: how much the person is praised and hyped by the media. That is what "overrated" refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 22 December 2013 (EST)
::::I just mentioned that Manning's flaws are mentioned. And their statistics show that they're some of the best quarterbacks ever - and Brady's playoff success is undeniable. Literally the only reason they're on this list is because they started ahead of a guy with a 9-7 record. Also how many negative stories have we run on Tebow? Perhaps he is overrated by our coverage?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:49, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T22:44:24Z

Iduan: the media reports on Manning's flaws

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too. What I'm suggesting is that there's not really consistency in our deciding who is underrated or overrated - the only thing Brady and Manning have in common is they both were higher on their team's depth chart than Tim Tebow. So are we just looking for reasons to call them underrated? If playoff success is your standard - Brady shouldn't be on this list.
!Player
!Designation
!Win-Loss Percentage
!Championships
!MVPs
|-
!Tom Brady
|Overrated
|76%
|3
|2
|-
!Peyton Manning
|Overrated
|67%
|1
|4
|-
!Tim Tebow
|Underrated
|56%
|0
|0
|}
::Also is Manning overrated? Because every article I read on him rags on him for not being the same player in the cold and his lack of playoff success. In fact he recently got angry at a press conference when confronted with the disparity in his numbers. The media reports on this.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T22:40:49Z

Iduan: are we looking for reasons?

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too. What I'm suggesting is that there's not really consistency in our deciding who is underrated or overrated - the only thing Brady and Manning have in common is they both were higher on their team's depth chart than Tim Tebow. So are we just looking for reasons to call them underrated? If playoff success is your standard - Brady shouldn't be on this list.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
{| style="width:100%; text-align:center"
!Player
!Designation
!Win-Loss Percentage
!Championships
!MVPs
|-
!Tom Brady
|Overrated
|76%
|3
|2
|-
!Peyton Manning
|Overrated
|67%
|1
|4
|-
!Tim Tebow
|Underrated
|56%
|0
|0
|}

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T22:38:35Z

Iduan: table for better presentation

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too. What I'm suggesting is that there's not really consistency in our deciding who is underrated or overrated - the only thing Brady and Manning have in common is they both were higher on their team's depth chart than Tim Tebow.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
{| style="width:100%"
!Player
!Designation
!Win-Loss Percentage
!Championships
!MVPs
|-
!Tom Brady
|Overrated
|76%
|3
|2
|-
!Peyton Manning
|Overrated
|67%
|1
|4
|-
!Tim Tebow
|Underrated
|56%
|0
|0
|}

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T22:32:31Z

Iduan: well if we're going by playoff success...

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story.
Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --[[User:SMagnet|SMagnet]] 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

== Dennis Rodman ==

Where is Dennis Rodman? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Tom Brady, Peyton manning, and Tim Tebow ==

Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game.

:The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

:: Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field.

:: I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg

== Hmmmm... ==

Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).

I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

== Manning ==

Today Peyton Manning set an NFL record for most touchdown passes in a season - with a 4TD 0INT performance against Houston he's now thrown 51. Bearing in mind that our biggest hit on him is "last year he lost in the first round to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens" - does this list read like an accurate list? Or does it read like a petty "these are the players Conservapedia's various users have grudges against"? Tom Brady? Wayne Rooney? Lebron James? In 20 years from now - when Brady and Manning are in the NFL Hall of Fame - no one will be thinking "yeah ... but wouldn't Tebow have been great?" In fact outside this site I don't think anyone is thinking that now.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:36, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:Manning typically does that: compiles great statistics during the season, but then usually fails in the playoffs. Manning is a good player (and a Republican supporter, by the way), but is overrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 December 2013 (EST)

::I know he is a Republican! It's one of the reasons I don't understand why he's on this list. But then if we were going by playoff success - Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and rarely do his teams not compete - in fact the Patriots won the AFC East this year against all odds given their terrible receiving crew and the season ending injury to their star tight end. But he's on this list too.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T21:36:00Z

Iduan: /* Manning */ new section

Nelson Mandela

2013-12-22T20:38:50Z

Iduan: whoops!

{{Officeholder
|name=Nelson Mandela
|image=Mandela2.jpg
|party=[[African National Congress]] 
|spouse=Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944–1957) Winnie Madikizela (1958–1996) Graça Machel (1998-)
|religion=[[Methodism]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=South Africa
|number=
|terms=10 May 1994 – 14 June 1999
|vp=[[Thabo Mbeki]] [[F. W. de Klerk]]
|preceded=F. W. de Klerk
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thabo Mbeki]]
}}
}}
'''Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela''' (July 18, 1918 - December 5th, 2013) was a [[South Africa]]n anti-apartheid leader, politician and [[philanthropist]] who served as President of South Africa from 1994-1999. For his life Mandela received more than 250 honors, including the 1993 [[Nobel Peace Prize]], the US [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] (from [[George W. Bush]]), the Soviet Order of Lenin and the Bharat Ratna.
==Early life==
Mandela was born Rolihlahla Mandela on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, to Nonqaphi Nosekeni and Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation.<ref name="NYT obituary">{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela_obit.html?pagewanted=1&ref=international-home|work=The New York Times|author=Keller, Bill|date=December 5, 2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|title=Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> When his father died at nine Nelson was taken in as a ward to Jongintaba Dalindyebo.<ref name="official biography">{{cite web|work=Nelson Mandela Foundation|title=Biography|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=12-10-2013|url=http://www.nelsonmandela.org/content/page/biography}}</ref>

===Education===
Mandela was sent to a [[Methodist]]<ref name="independent biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nelson-mandela-life-story-a-long-walk-to-immortality--the-life-and-times-of-madiba-8406457.html|work=The Independent|language=English|country=UK|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela biography: A long walk to immortality - the life and times of Madiba|author=Sampson, Anthony}}</ref> mission school for his primary education,<ref name="AllAfrica">{{cite web|url=http://allafrica.com/stories/201312091064.html|work=AllAfrica|title=South Africa: Biography of Nelson Mandela|date=12-06-2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> followed by time at Clarkebury Boarding Institute and Healdtown.<ref name="official biography"/> He began studying for a [[bachelor's degree]] at University College of Fort Hare, the only residential college for [[blacks]] in South Africa,<ref name="NYT obituary"/> but, along with Oliver Tambo,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> was expelled for joining a student [[protest]].<ref name="official biography"/> Upon returning to his village, as retribution,<ref name="official biography"/> Mandela's family selected a bride for him and his cousin, Justice; the two fled the family - and the prospect of leadership in [[tribal]] government - for [[Johannesburg, South Africa]].<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> There he worked in gold mines as a guard, but was fired when his superior discovered he was a runaway.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela would complete his bachelor's degree at the University of South Africa in 1943 and return to Fort Hare for his graduation.<ref name="official biography"/>

==Pre-imprisonment career==
===Work experience, early political activism===
In Johannesburg, Mandela was introduced to Walter Sisulu, a [[real estate]] businessman and a prominent member of the [[African National Congress]] (ANC) - a black liberation party opposed the extreme segregation called [[apartheid]]; <ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid|title=Apartheid|work=History|publisher=A&E Television Networks, LLC|accessdate=December 18, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Sisulu arranged for Mandela to be articled to a white attorney, Lazar Sidelsky, while Mandela studied [[law]] part time at University of the Witwatersrand - though he would leave the school in 1948.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="official biography"/> Mandela began to follow Anton Lembede; he, along with Mandela, Tambo and Sisulu organized the radical A.N.C. Youth League, alienating some white sympathizers with their strong black national rhetoric.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> The Youth League was also critical of the "old guard" leadership of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I was angry at the white man, not at racism ... While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=left|width=300px}}
At this time, Mandela fell strongly onto the side of Africanism is the liberation debate between Africanism and nonracialism
in liberation theology, though his eventual embrace of nonracialism would define his later life and career.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> The ANC Youth League was also fiercely anti-[[communist]]; Mandela would break up Communist Party meetings - regarding Communism as foreign and non-Afircan and believing that blacks should liberate themselves.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> This philosophy changed with the victory of the Afrikaner National Party in 1948 in the all-white elections; the National Party had run on a platform of [[apartheid]] and strong anti-communism.<ref name="independent biography"/> The elections sparked the radicalization of the ANC<ref name="telegraph biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10503342/Nelson-Mandela-A-life-rich-in-drama-tragedy-triumph-and-reconciliation.html|work=The Telegraph|title=Nelson Mandela: A life rich in drama, tragedy, triumph and reconciliation|format=HTML|language=English|author= Holman, Michael|date=December 7, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> - in 1949 the Youth League's tactics of boycott, strike, civil disobedience and non-co-operation were adopted as official ANC policy, and older members were purged from leadership positions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela would assume leadership positions within the party - including President of the Youth League and National Volunteer-in-Chief of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>

In 1952, the ANC launched its first passive resistance - the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/> The Defiance Campaign was suppressed with legislation lead by the National Party; protests were met with arrests - including that of Mandela's in 1956 on charges of [[treason]] (one of 156 ANC leaders to be arrested that year).<ref name="independent biography"/> The court found that Mandela had consistently advised his adherers to not resort to violence, but he was found guilty of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act and given a suspended prison sentence.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela was also confined to Johannesburg for six months and prohibited from attending gatherings; during this time, Mandela, despite not completing his law degree, and Tambo set up the first black law partnership in South Africa;<ref name="NYT obituary"/> the firm helped black clients with their political and other legal difficulties.<ref name="independent biography"/>

In 1953, Mandela created the M-plan (named after him) - a contingency plan in case the ANC - like the Communist Party - was declared illegal. The M-plan detailed how the party could run underground, communicating with members without resorting to public meetings.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Throughout the fifties Mandela would be consistently banned, arrested and imprisoned.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> In 1960 - the more radical Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) broke away from the ANC; their tactics- though still peaceful - were more aggressive and were met with violence.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> On March 21, 1961 police killed 69 peaceful protestors in what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre; after this massacre both parties were banned.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

===Militarist leader===
The Sharpeville Massacre sparked a turning point for Mandela - he became convinced that the ANC needed to adopt a separate military wing, called Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation; Mandela was made commander-in-chief.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/> There is also evidence that Mandela joined the South African Communist Party and a member the party's Central Committee (though he denied it through his life) - presumably for contacts.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|work=Business Day Live|title=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|author=Natasha Marrian|date=December 6, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
The new, violent, methods of the ANC were to destroy power plants and communications systems; the goal was that these acts would limit overseas investment. Mandela was adamant that the group not kill, but by the end of its 20 year campaign 63 people had been killed and 483 injured; the group was declared a [[terrorist]] group by the white South African government and the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8304153/Nelson-Mandelas-Spear-of-the-Nation-the-ANCs-armed-resistance.html|title=Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance|author=Laing, Aislinn|work=The Telegraph|format=HTML|language=English|date=February 5, 2011|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> Mandela left the country soon after the Spear of the Nation began its tactics, hoping to generate worldwide support and economic sanctions so that Pretoria might abandon apartheid.<ref name="independent biography"/> In 1962, Mandela was arrested after 17 months in hiding, charged with incitement to strike and illegally leaving the country.<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=right|width=300px}}
While serving, the South African police raided a farm near Rivonia - finding future plans of sabotage; Mandela and his colleagues were charged with organising sabotage and violent revolution as well as furthering the aims of communism; at his trial, Mandela declared his ideal of democracy in a four hour speech - concluding, "It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela acknowledged his crimes - that he was the commander of Spear of the Nation and that he had made alliances with Communists, but declared that he had turned to violence only when nonviolent means were foreclosed and likened his affiliation with Communists to Churchill’s cooperation with Stalin against Hitler.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Nelson also commented on his political evolution from black nationalist to multiracialist.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In part due to overwhelming pressure from the international community - including a near-unaminous vote by the [[United Nations]] - the lives of the accused were spared; Mandela and his colleagues were sentenced to life in prison.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

==Imprisonment==
Mandela became an elder statesman of the prison on Robben Island<ref name="telegraph biography"/> - where there were frequent clashes with prisoners and guards, he seemed above the fray; he was also singled out for cruelties. He was denied permission to attend the funerals of his mother and oldest son, and his wife endured persecution after being exiled from Johannesburg.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela and the prisoners initially turned down officers of release; he commented "Prisoners cannot enter into contracts - only free men can negotiate."<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela credited his time in prison with the cessation of his desire for vengeance, speaking of sympathetic white guards and National Party members who would attempt a dialogue.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

Pretoria began a more stringent crackdown on minority party activities - it detained 20,000 people without trial,<ref name="independent biography"/> but the pressure from the international community was too great. Mandela ultimately decided to negotiate with the white government without telling his fellow inmates and party-members, saying, “My comrades did not have the advantages that I had of brushing shoulders with the V.I.P.’s who came here, the judges, the minister of justice, the commissioner of prisons, and I had come to overcome my own prejudice towards them ... So I decided to present my colleagues with a fait accompli.”<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

In December 1988, as negotiations gathered momentum, and Mandela's health deteriorated (he had prostate surgery while in prison), he was moved to the Victor Verster Prison - where he could be better cared for and live in more comfortable conditions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> In February 1990, President Frederik Willem de Klerk legalized the ANC and shortly after released Mandela; two weeks later Mandela became the Deputy President of the ANC.<ref name="independent biography"/>

===Release and election===
Negotiations between Mandela, the ANC and the ruling party continued until eventually free elections were agreed upon, in exchange for a share of power for opposition parties and a guarantee that whites would not be threatened with reprisals.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In the ensuing elections of April 1994, the ANC won 62% of the vote - ensuring that Mandela would be the next President of South Africa.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

==Presidency==
Though elected leader, Mandela was frequently deferring to others in leadership. De Klerk and Thabo Mbeki - the latter selected by the ANC - were Mandela's deputy presidents, and privately he left most appointments and practical decisions to Mbeki, referring to himself as "head of state" rather than "head of government".<ref name="independent biography"/> When De Klerk left the coalition, Mbeki was allowed more power - sometimes presiding over the cabinet.

Mandela was not as effective in elected office as he was revolutionary leader. Prior to his election - he sought the financial support of 20 industrialists to build up the ANC. When he took office, he allowed the industrialists to have unprecedented access to the executive - and favored his big donors over unions.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela also made minimal progress towards the modest goals he had set on housing, education and jobs.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> He failed to grab the lead at the dawn of the ensuing crisis of [[AIDS]]; refusing to acknowledge the unpopular subject at a time when contraceptives were considered [[taboo]] in South Africa.<ref name="independent biography"/>

Still, Mandela continued to act as a unifier among races - as in 1995 when he shook the hand of Francois Pienaar - the Springbok [[rugby]] captain - significant due to rugby's strong association with Afrikaners - whose leaders strongly supported apartheid.<ref name="telegraph biography"/><ref>{{cite web|title=Mandela - Francois Pienaar’s tribute: short, simple, apt|format=HTML|work=Daily Maverick|author=Muller, Antoinette|date=December 12, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013|url=http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-12-12-mandela-francois-pienaars-tribute-short-simple-apt/#.UrM_sJGilDI}}</ref>

==Post-Presidency==
===Reaction to successor===
Mandela rarely directly criticized his successor, Mbeki, but privately criticized his inability to take criticism and his conspiratorial view of the world.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> When Mbeki publicly doubted the scientifically proven cause of AIDS, Mandela finally spoke out on the issue - citing the importance of condoms and contraceptives.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

===Reaction to global affairs===
[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|Nelson Mandela with [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]]]]

===Health problems and death===
Mandela suffered from a lung infection. From December 2012 to April 2013 he remained in a hospital. He had a procedure to remove a [[gallstone]].<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/31/south-africa-mandela-remains-in-hospital/|title=Mandela remains hospitalized for lung infection, spokesman says|language=English|format=HTML|date=March 31, 2013}}</ref> On April 6, 2013 he left the hospital,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/06/nelson-mandela-discharged-from-hospital-south-africa-says/|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela discharged from the hospital, South Africa says|language=English|publisher=Fox News|work=Associated Press|date=April 06, 2013}}</ref> but returned again in June 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/08/south-africa-mandela-taken-to-hospital/|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela remains in hospital with recurring lung infection|language=English|date=June 09, 2013}}</ref> Mandela was in a critical condition for a long time.<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=TownHall|url=http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/06/23/south-africa-mandela-in-critical-condition-n1625432|format=HTML|language=English|title=South Africa: Nelson Mandela in critical condition}}</ref>

On July 4th, 2013, it was revealed that court documents indicated that Nelson Mandela was on life support and was being kept alive by a breathing machine and faced "impending death"; he was kept in the hospital from June 8th, 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/04/nelson-mandela-africa-apartheid/2489137/|format=HTML|work=Associated Press|publisher=USA Today|author=Jason Straziuso|date=July 4, 2013|title=Nelson Mandela on life support, court documents show}}</ref> to December 5th, 2013, when he died.

====Global reaction and funeral====
[[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] both spoke at Mandela's funeral - which was marred by a fake sign language interpreter, who was later admitted to a psychiatry hospital.<ref>{{cite web|work=NBC News|publisher=NBC|author=Smith, Alexander|title='Fake' interpreter from Mandela event is admitted to psychiatric hospital: report|format=HTML|language=English|url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21969085-fake-interpreter-from-mandela-event-is-admitted-to-psychiatric-hospital-report?lite|date=December 19, 2013}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mandela, Nelson}}

[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]
[[Category:Sakharov laureates]]

Talk:Psychiatry

2013-12-22T20:16:49Z

Iduan: plagiarism

Another blank page created by [[User:HumbleServant|Not Ed Poor]]. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 11:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Reverting Iduan==
I apologize for any inconvenience, but due to IMHO odd reasoning I had to revert Iduan who provided the following rationale for his edit (actually he reverted my previous one):
''"(1) get another source 2) don't copy and paste text from a source 3) you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan)"''
::(1)...There is no explanation why another source should be used, after all, the very same source was already used at the main page of CP - hence it sounds strange that there should be anything wrong with it at all. It would be nice if there any objections to specify what they are about.
::(2)...It is not copy and paste, the original information is redistributed where appropriated here, moreover, the original information cannot be twisted and the source is credited, such approach is recognized even by biased Wikipedia, just have a look, for example, at John Hartnett (physicist) article there.
::(3)...editing article by extending its content is not [[trolling]] and cannot be used as rationale for blocking other editor. Such fallacious [[Ipse dixit]] approach would look like the person who suggest it is in the grasp of the [[Göring's syndrome]] causing one to act very anti-democratically. If there are any doubts, the invitation of other editors to share their opinion on subject is more preferred approach IMHO.
:::I hope this sounds to be enough reasonable response, thanx for your understanding. --[[User:AK|AK]] 08:42, 22 December 2013 (EST)
That is not what you were blocked for - but copy and pasting from a source as you did is plagiarism, but I understand you are a friend of Conservatives, so you can do whatever you want; I'm not reverting you again.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:16, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Nelson Mandela

2013-12-22T20:10:22Z

Iduan: source

{{Officeholder
|name=Nelson Mandela
|image=Mandela2.jpg
|party=[[African National Congress]] 
|spouse=Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944–1957) Winnie Madikizela (1958–1996) Graça Machel (1998-)
|religion=[[Methodism]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=South Africa
|number=
|terms=10 May 1994 – 14 June 1999
|vp=[[Thabo Mbeki]] [[F. W. de Klerk]]
|preceded=F. W. de Klerk
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thabo Mbeki]]
}}
}}
'''Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela''' (July 18, 1918 - December 5th, 2013) was a [[South Africa]]n anti-apartheid leader, politician and [[philanthropist]] who served as President of South Africa from 1994-1999. For his life Mandela received more than 250 honors, including the 1993 [[Nobel Peace Prize]], the US [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] (from [[George W. Bush]]), the Soviet Order of Lenin and the Bharat Ratna.
==Early life==
Mandela was born Rolihlahla Mandela on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, to Nonqaphi Nosekeni and Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation.<ref name="NYT obituary">{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela_obit.html?pagewanted=1&ref=international-home|work=The New York Times|author=Keller, Bill|date=December 5, 2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|title=Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> When his father died at nine Nelson was taken in as a ward to Jongintaba Dalindyebo.<ref name="official biography">{{cite web|work=Nelson Mandela Foundation|title=Biography|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=12-10-2013|url=http://www.nelsonmandela.org/content/page/biography}}</ref>

===Education===
Mandela was sent to a [[Methodist]]<ref name="independent biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nelson-mandela-life-story-a-long-walk-to-immortality--the-life-and-times-of-madiba-8406457.html|work=The Independent|language=English|country=UK|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela biography: A long walk to immortality - the life and times of Madiba|author=Sampson, Anthony}}</ref> mission school for his primary education,<ref name="AllAfrica">{{cite web|url=http://allafrica.com/stories/201312091064.html|work=AllAfrica|title=South Africa: Biography of Nelson Mandela|date=12-06-2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> followed by time at Clarkebury Boarding Institute and Healdtown.<ref name="official biography"/> He began studying for a [[bachelor's degree]] at University College of Fort Hare, the only residential college for [[blacks]] in South Africa,<ref name="NYT obituary"/> but, along with Oliver Tambo,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> was expelled for joining a student [[protest]].<ref name="official biography"/> Upon returning to his village, as retribution,<ref name="official biography"/> Mandela's family selected a bride for him and his cousin, Justice; the two fled the family - and the prospect of leadership in [[tribal]] government - for [[Johannesburg, South Africa]].<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> There he worked in gold mines as a guard, but was fired when his superior discovered he was a runaway.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela would complete his bachelor's degree at the University of South Africa in 1943 and return to Fort Hare for his graduation.<ref name="official biography"/>

==Pre-imprisonment career==
===Work experience, early political activism===
In Johannesburg, Mandela was introduced to Walter Sisulu, a [[real estate]] businessman and a prominent member of the [[African National Congress]] (ANC) - a black liberation party opposed the extreme segregation called [[apartheid]]; <ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid|title=Apartheid|work=History|publisher=A&E Television Networks, LLC|accessdate=December 18, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Sisulu arranged for Mandela to be articled to a white attorney, Lazar Sidelsky, while Mandela studied [[law]] part time at University of the Witwatersrand - though he would leave the school in 1948.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="official biography"/> Mandela began to follow Anton Lembede; he, along with Mandela, Tambo and Sisulu organized the radical A.N.C. Youth League, alienating some white sympathizers with their strong black national rhetoric.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> The Youth League was also critical of the "old guard" leadership of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I was angry at the white man, not at racism ... While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=left|width=300px}}
At this time, Mandela fell strongly onto the side of Africanism is the liberation debate between Africanism and nonracialism
in liberation theology, though his eventual embrace of nonracialism would define his later life and career.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> The ANC Youth League was also fiercely anti-[[communist]]; Mandela would break up Communist Party meetings - regarding Communism as foreign and non-Afircan and believing that blacks should liberate themselves.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> This philosophy changed with the victory of the Afrikaner National Party in 1948 in the all-white elections; the National Party had run on a platform of [[apartheid]] and strong anti-communism.<ref name="independent biography"/> The elections sparked the radicalization of the ANC<ref name="telegraph biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10503342/Nelson-Mandela-A-life-rich-in-drama-tragedy-triumph-and-reconciliation.html|work=The Telegraph|title=Nelson Mandela: A life rich in drama, tragedy, triumph and reconciliation|format=HTML|language=English|author= Holman, Michael|date=December 7, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> - in 1949 the Youth League's tactics of boycott, strike, civil disobedience and non-co-operation were adopted as official ANC policy, and older members were purged from leadership positions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela would assume leadership positions within the party - including President of the Youth League and National Volunteer-in-Chief of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>

In 1952, the ANC launched its first passive resistance - the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/> The Defiance Campaign was suppressed with legislation lead by the National Party; protests were met with arrests - including that of Mandela's in 1956 on charges of [[treason]] (one of 156 ANC leaders to be arrested that year).<ref name="independent biography"/> The court found that Mandela had consistently advised his adherers to not resort to violence, but he was found guilty of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act and given a suspended prison sentence.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela was also confined to Johannesburg for six months and prohibited from attending gatherings; during this time, Mandela, despite not completing his law degree, and Tambo set up the first black law partnership in South Africa;<ref name="NYT obituary"/> the firm helped black clients with their political and other legal difficulties.<ref name="independent biography"/>

In 1953, Mandela created the M-plan (named after him) - a contingency plan in case the ANC - like the Communist Party - was declared illegal. The M-plan detailed how the party could run underground, communicating with members without resorting to public meetings.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Throughout the fifties Mandela would be consistently banned, arrested and imprisoned.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> In 1960 - the more radical Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) broke away from the ANC; their tactics- though still peaceful - were more aggressive and were met with violence.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> On March 21, 1961 police killed 69 peaceful protestors in what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre; after this massacre both parties were banned.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

===Militarist leader===
The Sharpeville Massacre sparked a turning point for Mandela - he became convinced that the ANC needed to adopt a separate military wing, called Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation; Mandela was made commander-in-chief.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/> There is also evidence that Mandela joined the South African Communist Party and a member the party's Central Committee (though he denied it through his life) - presumably for contacts.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|work=Business Day Live|title=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|author=Natasha Marrian|date=December 6, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
The new, violent, methods of the ANC were to destroy power plants and communications systems; the goal was that these acts would limit overseas investment. Mandela was adamant that the group not kill, but by the end of its 20 year campaign 63 people had been killed and 483 injured; the group was declared a [[terrorist]] group by the white South African government and the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8304153/Nelson-Mandelas-Spear-of-the-Nation-the-ANCs-armed-resistance.html|title=Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance|author=Laing, Aislinn|work=The Telegraph|format=HTML|language=English|date=February 5, 2011|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> Mandela left the country soon after the Spear of the Nation began its tactics, hoping to generate worldwide support and economic sanctions so that Pretoria might abandon apartheid.<ref name="independent biography"/> In 1962, Mandela was arrested after 17 months in hiding, charged with incitement to strike and illegally leaving the country.<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=right|width=300px}}
While serving, the South African police raided a farm near Rivonia - finding future plans of sabotage; Mandela and his colleagues were charged with organising sabotage and violent revolution as well as furthering the aims of communism; at his trial, Mandela declared his ideal of democracy in a four hour speech - concluding, "It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela acknowledged his crimes - that he was the commander of Spear of the Nation and that he had made alliances with Communists, but declared that he had turned to violence only when nonviolent means were foreclosed and likened his affiliation with Communists to Churchill’s cooperation with Stalin against Hitler.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Nelson also commented on his political evolution from black nationalist to multiracialist.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In part due to overwhelming pressure from the international community - including a near-unaminous vote by the [[United Nations]] - the lives of the accused were spared; Mandela and his colleagues were sentenced to life in prison.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

==Imprisonment==
Mandela became an elder statesman of the prison on Robben Island<ref name="telegraph biography"/> - where there were frequent clashes with prisoners and guards, he seemed above the fray; he was also singled out for cruelties. He was denied permission to attend the funerals of his mother and oldest son, and his wife endured persecution after being exiled from Johannesburg.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela and the prisoners initially turned down officers of release; he commented "Prisoners cannot enter into contracts - only free men can negotiate."<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela credited his time in prison with the cessation of his desire for vengeance, speaking of sympathetic white guards and National Party members who would attempt a dialogue.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

Pretoria began a more stringent crackdown on minority party activities - it detained 20,000 people without trial,<ref name="independent biography"/> but the pressure from the international community was too great. Mandela ultimately decided to negotiate with the white government without telling his fellow inmates and party-members, saying, “My comrades did not have the advantages that I had of brushing shoulders with the V.I.P.’s who came here, the judges, the minister of justice, the commissioner of prisons, and I had come to overcome my own prejudice towards them ... So I decided to present my colleagues with a fait accompli.”<ref name=NYT obituary"/>

In December 1988, as negotiations gathered momentum, and Mandela's health deteriorated (he had prostate surgery while in prison), he was moved to the Victor Verster Prison - where he could be better cared for and live in more comfortable conditions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> In February 1990, President Frederik Willem de Klerk legalized the ANC and shortly after released Mandela; two weeks later Mandela became the Deputy President of the ANC.<ref name="independent biography"/>

===Release and election===
Negotiations between Mandela, the ANC and the ruling party continued until eventually free elections were agreed upon, in exchange for a share of power for opposition parties and a guarantee that whites would not be threatened with reprisals.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In the ensuing elections of April 1994, the ANC won 62% of the vote - ensuring that Mandela would be the next President of South Africa.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

==Presidency==
Though elected leader, Mandela was frequently deferring to others in leadership. De Klerk and Thabo Mbeki - the latter selected by the ANC - were Mandela's deputy presidents, and privately he left most appointments and practical decisions to Mbeki, referring to himself as "head of state" rather than "head of government".<ref name="independent biography"/> When De Klerk left the coalition, Mbeki was allowed more power - sometimes presiding over the cabinet.

Mandela was not as effective in elected office as he was revolutionary leader. Prior to his election - he sought the financial support of 20 industrialists to build up the ANC. When he took office, he allowed the industrialists to have unprecedented access to the executive - and favored his big donors over unions.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela also made minimal progress towards the modest goals he had set on housing, education and jobs.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> He failed to grab the lead at the dawn of the ensuing crisis of [[AIDS]]; refusing to acknowledge the unpopular subject at a time when contraceptives were considered [[taboo]] in South Africa.<ref name="independent biography"/>

Still, Mandela continued to act as a unifier among races - as in 1995 when he shook the hand of Francois Pienaar - the Springbok [[rugby]] captain - significant due to rugby's strong association with Afrikaners - whose leaders strongly supported apartheid.<ref name="telegraph biography"/><ref>{{cite web|title=Mandela - Francois Pienaar’s tribute: short, simple, apt|format=HTML|work=Daily Maverick|author=Muller, Antoinette|date=December 12, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013|url=http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-12-12-mandela-francois-pienaars-tribute-short-simple-apt/#.UrM_sJGilDI}}</ref>

==Post-Presidency==
===Reaction to successor===
Mandela rarely directly criticized his successor, Mbeki, but privately criticized his inability to take criticism and his conspiratorial view of the world.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> When Mbeki publicly doubted the scientifically proven cause of AIDS, Mandela finally spoke out on the issue - citing the importance of condoms and contraceptives.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

===Reaction to global affairs===
[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|Nelson Mandela with [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]]]]

===Health problems and death===
Mandela suffered from a lung infection. From December 2012 to April 2013 he remained in a hospital. He had a procedure to remove a [[gallstone]].<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/31/south-africa-mandela-remains-in-hospital/|title=Mandela remains hospitalized for lung infection, spokesman says|language=English|format=HTML|date=March 31, 2013}}</ref> On April 6, 2013 he left the hospital,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/06/nelson-mandela-discharged-from-hospital-south-africa-says/|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela discharged from the hospital, South Africa says|language=English|publisher=Fox News|work=Associated Press|date=April 06, 2013}}</ref> but returned again in June 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/08/south-africa-mandela-taken-to-hospital/|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela remains in hospital with recurring lung infection|language=English|date=June 09, 2013}}</ref> Mandela was in a critical condition for a long time.<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=TownHall|url=http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/06/23/south-africa-mandela-in-critical-condition-n1625432|format=HTML|language=English|title=South Africa: Nelson Mandela in critical condition}}</ref>

On July 4th, 2013, it was revealed that court documents indicated that Nelson Mandela was on life support and was being kept alive by a breathing machine and faced "impending death"; he was kept in the hospital from June 8th, 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/04/nelson-mandela-africa-apartheid/2489137/|format=HTML|work=Associated Press|publisher=USA Today|author=Jason Straziuso|date=July 4, 2013|title=Nelson Mandela on life support, court documents show}}</ref> to December 5th, 2013, when he died.

====Global reaction and funeral====
[[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] both spoke at Mandela's funeral - which was marred by a fake sign language interpreter, who was later admitted to a psychiatry hospital.<ref>{{cite web|work=NBC News|publisher=NBC|author=Smith, Alexander|title='Fake' interpreter from Mandela event is admitted to psychiatric hospital: report|format=HTML|language=English|url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21969085-fake-interpreter-from-mandela-event-is-admitted-to-psychiatric-hospital-report?lite|date=December 19, 2013}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mandela, Nelson}}

[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]
[[Category:Sakharov laureates]]

Nelson Mandela

2013-12-22T20:08:32Z

Iduan: the interpreter was admitted to a psych hospital

{{Officeholder
|name=Nelson Mandela
|image=Mandela2.jpg
|party=[[African National Congress]] 
|spouse=Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944–1957) Winnie Madikizela (1958–1996) Graça Machel (1998-)
|religion=[[Methodism]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=South Africa
|number=
|terms=10 May 1994 – 14 June 1999
|vp=[[Thabo Mbeki]] [[F. W. de Klerk]]
|preceded=F. W. de Klerk
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thabo Mbeki]]
}}
}}
'''Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela''' (July 18, 1918 - December 5th, 2013) was a [[South Africa]]n anti-apartheid leader, politician and [[philanthropist]] who served as President of South Africa from 1994-1999. For his life Mandela received more than 250 honors, including the 1993 [[Nobel Peace Prize]], the US [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] (from [[George W. Bush]]), the Soviet Order of Lenin and the Bharat Ratna.
==Early life==
Mandela was born Rolihlahla Mandela on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, to Nonqaphi Nosekeni and Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation.<ref name="NYT obituary">{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela_obit.html?pagewanted=1&ref=international-home|work=The New York Times|author=Keller, Bill|date=December 5, 2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|title=Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> When his father died at nine Nelson was taken in as a ward to Jongintaba Dalindyebo.<ref name="official biography">{{cite web|work=Nelson Mandela Foundation|title=Biography|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=12-10-2013|url=http://www.nelsonmandela.org/content/page/biography}}</ref>

===Education===
Mandela was sent to a [[Methodist]]<ref name="independent biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nelson-mandela-life-story-a-long-walk-to-immortality--the-life-and-times-of-madiba-8406457.html|work=The Independent|language=English|country=UK|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela biography: A long walk to immortality - the life and times of Madiba|author=Sampson, Anthony}}</ref> mission school for his primary education,<ref name="AllAfrica">{{cite web|url=http://allafrica.com/stories/201312091064.html|work=AllAfrica|title=South Africa: Biography of Nelson Mandela|date=12-06-2013|accessdate=12-10-2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> followed by time at Clarkebury Boarding Institute and Healdtown.<ref name="official biography"/> He began studying for a [[bachelor's degree]] at University College of Fort Hare, the only residential college for [[blacks]] in South Africa,<ref name="NYT obituary"/> but, along with Oliver Tambo,<ref name="AllAfrica"/> was expelled for joining a student [[protest]].<ref name="official biography"/> Upon returning to his village, as retribution,<ref name="official biography"/> Mandela's family selected a bride for him and his cousin, Justice; the two fled the family - and the prospect of leadership in [[tribal]] government - for [[Johannesburg, South Africa]].<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> There he worked in gold mines as a guard, but was fired when his superior discovered he was a runaway.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela would complete his bachelor's degree at the University of South Africa in 1943 and return to Fort Hare for his graduation.<ref name="official biography"/>

==Pre-imprisonment career==
===Work experience, early political activism===
In Johannesburg, Mandela was introduced to Walter Sisulu, a [[real estate]] businessman and a prominent member of the [[African National Congress]] (ANC) - a black liberation party opposed the extreme segregation called [[apartheid]]; <ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid|title=Apartheid|work=History|publisher=A&E Television Networks, LLC|accessdate=December 18, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Sisulu arranged for Mandela to be articled to a white attorney, Lazar Sidelsky, while Mandela studied [[law]] part time at University of the Witwatersrand - though he would leave the school in 1948.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="official biography"/> Mandela began to follow Anton Lembede; he, along with Mandela, Tambo and Sisulu organized the radical A.N.C. Youth League, alienating some white sympathizers with their strong black national rhetoric.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> The Youth League was also critical of the "old guard" leadership of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I was angry at the white man, not at racism ... While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=left|width=300px}}
At this time, Mandela fell strongly onto the side of Africanism is the liberation debate between Africanism and nonracialism
in liberation theology, though his eventual embrace of nonracialism would define his later life and career.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> The ANC Youth League was also fiercely anti-[[communist]]; Mandela would break up Communist Party meetings - regarding Communism as foreign and non-Afircan and believing that blacks should liberate themselves.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> This philosophy changed with the victory of the Afrikaner National Party in 1948 in the all-white elections; the National Party had run on a platform of [[apartheid]] and strong anti-communism.<ref name="independent biography"/> The elections sparked the radicalization of the ANC<ref name="telegraph biography">{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10503342/Nelson-Mandela-A-life-rich-in-drama-tragedy-triumph-and-reconciliation.html|work=The Telegraph|title=Nelson Mandela: A life rich in drama, tragedy, triumph and reconciliation|format=HTML|language=English|author= Holman, Michael|date=December 7, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> - in 1949 the Youth League's tactics of boycott, strike, civil disobedience and non-co-operation were adopted as official ANC policy, and older members were purged from leadership positions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela would assume leadership positions within the party - including President of the Youth League and National Volunteer-in-Chief of the ANC.<ref name="AllAfrica"/>

In 1952, the ANC launched its first passive resistance - the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/> The Defiance Campaign was suppressed with legislation lead by the National Party; protests were met with arrests - including that of Mandela's in 1956 on charges of [[treason]] (one of 156 ANC leaders to be arrested that year).<ref name="independent biography"/> The court found that Mandela had consistently advised his adherers to not resort to violence, but he was found guilty of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act and given a suspended prison sentence.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela was also confined to Johannesburg for six months and prohibited from attending gatherings; during this time, Mandela, despite not completing his law degree, and Tambo set up the first black law partnership in South Africa;<ref name="NYT obituary"/> the firm helped black clients with their political and other legal difficulties.<ref name="independent biography"/>

In 1953, Mandela created the M-plan (named after him) - a contingency plan in case the ANC - like the Communist Party - was declared illegal. The M-plan detailed how the party could run underground, communicating with members without resorting to public meetings.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Throughout the fifties Mandela would be consistently banned, arrested and imprisoned.<ref name="AllAfrica"/> In 1960 - the more radical Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) broke away from the ANC; their tactics- though still peaceful - were more aggressive and were met with violence.<ref name="independent biography"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/> On March 21, 1961 police killed 69 peaceful protestors in what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre; after this massacre both parties were banned.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

===Militarist leader===
The Sharpeville Massacre sparked a turning point for Mandela - he became convinced that the ANC needed to adopt a separate military wing, called Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation; Mandela was made commander-in-chief.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/> There is also evidence that Mandela joined the South African Communist Party and a member the party's Central Committee (though he denied it through his life) - presumably for contacts.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|work=Business Day Live|title=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2013/12/06/sacp-confirms-nelson-mandela-was-a-member|author=Natasha Marrian|date=December 6, 2013|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
The new, violent, methods of the ANC were to destroy power plants and communications systems; the goal was that these acts would limit overseas investment. Mandela was adamant that the group not kill, but by the end of its 20 year campaign 63 people had been killed and 483 injured; the group was declared a [[terrorist]] group by the white South African government and the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8304153/Nelson-Mandelas-Spear-of-the-Nation-the-ANCs-armed-resistance.html|title=Nelson Mandela's Spear of the Nation: the ANC's armed resistance|author=Laing, Aislinn|work=The Telegraph|format=HTML|language=English|date=February 5, 2011|accessdate=December 18, 2013}}</ref> Mandela left the country soon after the Spear of the Nation began its tactics, hoping to generate worldwide support and economic sanctions so that Pretoria might abandon apartheid.<ref name="independent biography"/> In 1962, Mandela was arrested after 17 months in hiding, charged with incitement to strike and illegally leaving the country.<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="independent biography"/>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”|source=Nelson Mandela<ref name="NYT obituary"/>|align=right|width=300px}}
While serving, the South African police raided a farm near Rivonia - finding future plans of sabotage; Mandela and his colleagues were charged with organising sabotage and violent revolution as well as furthering the aims of communism; at his trial, Mandela declared his ideal of democracy in a four hour speech - concluding, "It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."<ref name="independent biography"/> Mandela acknowledged his crimes - that he was the commander of Spear of the Nation and that he had made alliances with Communists, but declared that he had turned to violence only when nonviolent means were foreclosed and likened his affiliation with Communists to Churchill’s cooperation with Stalin against Hitler.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Nelson also commented on his political evolution from black nationalist to multiracialist.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In part due to overwhelming pressure from the international community - including a near-unaminous vote by the [[United Nations]] - the lives of the accused were spared; Mandela and his colleagues were sentenced to life in prison.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

==Imprisonment==
Mandela became an elder statesman of the prison on Robben Island<ref name="telegraph biography"/> - where there were frequent clashes with prisoners and guards, he seemed above the fray; he was also singled out for cruelties. He was denied permission to attend the funerals of his mother and oldest son, and his wife endured persecution after being exiled from Johannesburg.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela and the prisoners initially turned down officers of release; he commented "Prisoners cannot enter into contracts - only free men can negotiate."<ref name="AllAfrica"/> Mandela credited his time in prison with the cessation of his desire for vengeance, speaking of sympathetic white guards and National Party members who would attempt a dialogue.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

Pretoria began a more stringent crackdown on minority party activities - it detained 20,000 people without trial,<ref name="independent biography"/> but the pressure from the international community was too great. Mandela ultimately decided to negotiate with the white government without telling his fellow inmates and party-members, saying, “My comrades did not have the advantages that I had of brushing shoulders with the V.I.P.’s who came here, the judges, the minister of justice, the commissioner of prisons, and I had come to overcome my own prejudice towards them ... So I decided to present my colleagues with a fait accompli.”

In December 1988, as negotiations gathered momentum, and Mandela's health deteriorated (he had prostate surgery while in prison), he was moved to the Victor Verster Prison - where he could be better cared for and live in more comfortable conditions.<ref name="AllAfrica"/><ref name="NYT obituary"/> In February 1990, President Frederik Willem de Klerk legalized the ANC and shortly after released Mandela; two weeks later Mandela became the Deputy President of the ANC.<ref name="independent biography"/>

===Release and election===
Negotiations between Mandela, the ANC and the ruling party continued until eventually free elections were agreed upon, in exchange for a share of power for opposition parties and a guarantee that whites would not be threatened with reprisals.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> In the ensuing elections of April 1994, the ANC won 62% of the vote - ensuring that Mandela would be the next President of South Africa.<ref name="NYT obituary"/><ref name="independent biography"/>

==Presidency==
Though elected leader, Mandela was frequently deferring to others in leadership. De Klerk and Thabo Mbeki - the latter selected by the ANC - were Mandela's deputy presidents, and privately he left most appointments and practical decisions to Mbeki, referring to himself as "head of state" rather than "head of government".<ref name="independent biography"/> When De Klerk left the coalition, Mbeki was allowed more power - sometimes presiding over the cabinet.

Mandela was not as effective in elected office as he was revolutionary leader. Prior to his election - he sought the financial support of 20 industrialists to build up the ANC. When he took office, he allowed the industrialists to have unprecedented access to the executive - and favored his big donors over unions.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> Mandela also made minimal progress towards the modest goals he had set on housing, education and jobs.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> He failed to grab the lead at the dawn of the ensuing crisis of [[AIDS]]; refusing to acknowledge the unpopular subject at a time when contraceptives were considered [[taboo]] in South Africa.<ref name="independent biography"/>

Still, Mandela continued to act as a unifier among races - as in 1995 when he shook the hand of Francois Pienaar - the Springbok [[rugby]] captain - significant due to rugby's strong association with Afrikaners - whose leaders strongly supported apartheid.<ref name="telegraph biography"/><ref>{{cite web|title=Mandela - Francois Pienaar’s tribute: short, simple, apt|format=HTML|work=Daily Maverick|author=Muller, Antoinette|date=December 12, 2013|accessdate=December 18, 2013|url=http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-12-12-mandela-francois-pienaars-tribute-short-simple-apt/#.UrM_sJGilDI}}</ref>

==Post-Presidency==
===Reaction to successor===
Mandela rarely directly criticized his successor, Mbeki, but privately criticized his inability to take criticism and his conspiratorial view of the world.<ref name="NYT obituary"/> When Mbeki publicly doubted the scientifically proven cause of AIDS, Mandela finally spoke out on the issue - citing the importance of condoms and contraceptives.<ref name="NYT obituary"/>

===Reaction to global affairs===
[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|Nelson Mandela with [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]]]]

===Health problems and death===
Mandela suffered from a lung infection. From December 2012 to April 2013 he remained in a hospital. He had a procedure to remove a [[gallstone]].<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/31/south-africa-mandela-remains-in-hospital/|title=Mandela remains hospitalized for lung infection, spokesman says|language=English|format=HTML|date=March 31, 2013}}</ref> On April 6, 2013 he left the hospital,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/06/nelson-mandela-discharged-from-hospital-south-africa-says/|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela discharged from the hospital, South Africa says|language=English|publisher=Fox News|work=Associated Press|date=April 06, 2013}}</ref> but returned again in June 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/08/south-africa-mandela-taken-to-hospital/|work=Associated Press|publisher=Fox News|format=HTML|title=Nelson Mandela remains in hospital with recurring lung infection|language=English|date=June 09, 2013}}</ref> Mandela was in a critical condition for a long time.<ref>{{cite web|work=Associated Press|publisher=TownHall|url=http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/06/23/south-africa-mandela-in-critical-condition-n1625432|format=HTML|language=English|title=South Africa: Nelson Mandela in critical condition}}</ref>

On July 4th, 2013, it was revealed that court documents indicated that Nelson Mandela was on life support and was being kept alive by a breathing machine and faced "impending death"; he was kept in the hospital from June 8th, 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/04/nelson-mandela-africa-apartheid/2489137/|format=HTML|work=Associated Press|publisher=USA Today|author=Jason Straziuso|date=July 4, 2013|title=Nelson Mandela on life support, court documents show}}</ref> to December 5th, 2013, when he died.

====Global reaction and funeral====
[[George W. Bush]] and [[Barack Obama]] both spoke at Mandela's funeral - which was marred by a fake sign language interpreter, who was later admitted to a psychiatry hospital.<ref>{{cite web|work=NBC News|publisher=NBC|author=Smith, Alexander|title='Fake' interpreter from Mandela event is admitted to psychiatric hospital: report|format=HTML|language=English|url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21969085-fake-interpreter-from-mandela-event-is-admitted-to-psychiatric-hospital-report?lite|date=December 19, 2013}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mandela, Nelson}}

[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]
[[Category:Sakharov laureates]]

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-22T20:01:54Z

Iduan: response

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-22T11:32:26Z

Iduan: /* This is a terrible article */ I told you I wouldn't interfere

Overrated Sports Stars

2013-12-22T03:21:37Z

Iduan: revert

[[File:Peyton Manning.jpg|thumb|Peyton Manning]]
The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better,<ref>Sampras defeated Agassi four out of the five times they met in Grand Slam finals.</ref> but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league and then became a benchwarmer in the French League. His own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].
#[[Tom Brady]] — has relatively weak throwing strength, which makes him less effective when there is a good pass rush that forces him to throw while moving. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — was an overhyped bust at the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Bryant is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Bryant's Lakers were pathetic in 2012-2013 while he was playing.
#[[LeBron James]] — over-promoted by the media to an absurd extent, LeBron has sometimes underachieved in key playoff games. Christian star Kevin Durant, who outscored James (and Kobe Bryant) in the Olympics, and other players are as good or better.
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions.
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. When Tebow came to the Jets, [[liberals]] championed the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career. As a result, Tebow was forced out of the Jets team and released at the end of the 2012-13 season.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — Hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The lamestream media adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements.
[[File:C Ronaldo.jpg|thumb|200px|Cristiano Ronaldo.]]
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Lionel Messi]] - Stands accused of criminal tax evasion.
#[[Sebastian Vettel]] - Beneath the nice guy exterior lies a deceitful, win at all costs person who thinks he is above following his [[Formula One|F1]] racing team orders.
#[[Adam Dunn]] - The [[Chicago White Sox]] signed him to a four-year, $56 million deal (more than team leader [[Paul Konerko]] is paid) in the winter of 2010-2011. However, he has posted anemic numbers since that time, hitting .159 in 2011 and striking out 222 times in 2012 (with a weak batting average of .204). As of July 10, he had struck out 103 times in 2013, on track to break the 200-strikeout mark again, and was batting .209. He hits a lot of home runs--when he is focussed--but this does not make up for his problems in other areas.
#[[Donald Bradman]] - The mainstream media boosted his reputation but he used an unusual batting technique and had difficult relationships with his team-mates. He never truly mastered batting on sticky wickets.
#[[Willie John McBride]] - MSM pressure led to him being appointed captain of the British and Irish Lions despite being "over the hill" according to non-lamestream commentators. Encouraged a culture of aggression, violence and "getting your retaliation in first" in the previously gentlemanly game of Rugby Union.

[[File:Donald Bradman australian cricket player.JPG|thumb|left|Donald Bradman.]]
{{Clear}}

== See also ==

*[[Conservapedia Proven Right]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:sports]]

Talk:Disturbed character

2013-12-22T02:58:57Z

Iduan: /* This is a terrible article */ new section