Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Fareed Zakaria

2009-03-09T22:12:03Z

Ieuan: /* On Iraq */

[[Image:Fareed.jpg|right|thumb| Fareed Zakarai]]

Born on 20th January 1964,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821472/ Fareed Zakaria]</ref> in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, ''Fareed Zakaria'' is now a naturalized American. He is currently a journalist, author and television host specializing in world affairs.

==Family life==

Fareed Zakaria was born to a Muslim family involved with politics and journalism in India. His father was Rafiq Zakaria, a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and India's freedom movement. Rafiq Zakaria was also an Islamic scholar. Fareed Zakaria's mother, Fatima Zakaria, has worked as an editor of the Sunday edition of the ''Times of India''. Fareed Zakaria lives in New York with his wife Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, a son Omar, and daughters Lila and Sofia.

Zakaria self-identifies as a [[Muslim]] but has stated ''"I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref> and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine.<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Eduacation==

Fareed Zakaira attended the private Anglican Cathedral and John Connon School located in Mumbai. He graduated Yale College and received a PhD in political science from Harvard University.

==Journalism==
Zakaria became managing editor of the prestigious magazine ''Foreign Affairs'' after working at a Harvard research project that was examining American foreign policy. In October 2000 Zakaria was named editor of ''Newsweek International''. He writes a regular column for ''Newsweek'', which also appears in ''Newsweek International'' and the ''Washington Post.'' Zakaria has worked as a columnist for the web publication Slate<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/3519/</ref>, where he wrote about wine, a passion of Zakaria's that has led him to claim that wine ''"is the perfect gift"''<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Television==

Zakaria has hosted or been in a number of TV shows, including:
* ''Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria'' (PBS)
* was a news analyst on '''This Week with George Stephanopoulos'' (ABC 2000-2007)
* ''Fareed Zakaria GPS''(Global Public Square) (premiered CNN in June 2008).<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Author==

Zakaria is also the author and/or co-editor of the following works:
*''The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2008) ISBN 0-393-06235-X
*''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
*''From Wealth to Power'', Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0-691-04496-1
*''The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs'', edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 0-465-00170-X

==Political Views==

Zakaria has had a wide variety of political views and identities. In the 1980s he was seen as being [[neoconservative]] who supported President Ronald Reagen, but currently identifies himself as being "centrist"<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>, whilst ''Forbes,'' in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of ''"The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_18.html?thisSpeed=15000</ref>. Zakaria has also stated that he does not believe himself as being devoted to one idealogy as ''""I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>

In ''The Future of Freedom'', Zakaria puts forward the argument that democracy works best where "constitutional liberalism" already has a history. Zakaria points out that in history liberty tends to be a prelude to democracy and that countries that hold elections without first attempting to undertake a program of liberalization such as an increase in personal freedoms, rule of law and economic liberalization end up failing by becoming ''"illiberal democracies"'' such as Iran. As such Zakaria was critical of President [[George W. Bush]]'s administrations drive to hold elections in the Middle-East without seeing that the building of institutions of law, governance and liberty in the same states needed the same vigour and zeal.<ref>''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4</ref>

[[Image:Newsweekcovermarch9.jpg|thumb| Front Cover, [[Newsweek]], 9th March]]
===9-11===
In regards to the 9/11 attacks Zakaria has argued that Islamic extremism was the product of stagnation and the non-development of society in many parts of the Arab world. At the heart of Zakaria'a argument is that much of the extremism common to Islamic terrorists was that their ideals grew in states that had experienced decades of tyrannical and corrupt rule that had been marketed to its people as being a Western-style secular government through the use of misinformation and propaganda. The response to such forms of government saw the growth of an opposition that was religious, violent and, with the rise of global communication and the internet, increasingly organised, and increasingly willing to overthrow governments and replace them with violent, repressive theocracies, or at least a form of government that had deep similarities to a theocracy. Zakaria has also argued in a cover essay for the 9th March edition of Newsweek that ''"The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years — including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.''

''How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago."''<ref>http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8607</ref>

=== On Iraq ===

Initialy supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zakaria stated at the time, ''"The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."''<ref>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/</ref>. Zakaria also argued for an operation sanctioned by the UN and using a force of 400 000 troops, a number that was higher than the number of troops actually deployed by the then administration. Zakaria also called for an international occupation force, similar to that of Kosova.

However, after the invasion Zakaria frequently criticized much of the occupation of Iraq<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>, and opposed the strategy of an Iraq surge in March 2007, instead arguing that the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 60 000.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>

During January 2009 Zakaria stated that the surge had ''"succeeded"''.<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/11/mccains_downfall_republican_fo.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</ref>

== Critiscms ==

Amongst the critiscms that Zakaris has received are:

*In the piece ''"Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite"'', written for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization, Roger Bybee (member of the Wisconsin Citizen Action) wrote that Zakaria's ''"fervent embrace of the perspectives of the powerful keeps him in a state of denial regarding fundamental realities of the global economy."''<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593</ref>
*Eric Tyson, a noted personal finance expert and author cited in his newspaper column numerous flaws in the arguments that Zakaria put forward in a cover story for Newsweek in regard to the latteer stages of the financial crisis of 2008.<ref>http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081111</ref>
*President of the Pakistan Society of Criminology, Mr. Fasihuddin, criticized Zakaria in the article ''""Fareed Zakaria on Terrorism"'' (which was published on the website of Pakistan Society of Criminology), alledging that Zakaria failed to base his article on any credible data and that Zakaria lacks adequate knowledge of NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) and the surrounding tribal areas. Mr. Fusihuddin states that Zakaria and his associates are ''"Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX."''<ref>http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FareedZakariaonTerrorism.doc</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html Zakaria webpage]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Zakaria, Fareed}}

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

2009-03-09T22:10:22Z

Ieuan: /* Genocide */

== Old English ==

I like what you have to say about it, but I don't agree that it's as unrecognizable as (I think) you're trying to say.
:''Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. Þa cwæð he, "Rihtlice hi :sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon."''

:''Some simple pronouns like "he" are recognizable, as are the Old English equivalents of verbs like "were".''

This is just my take on it, but if you even hazard a guess at OE pronunciation, and read the line aloud, there are several words (even nouns) that are recognizable! And there are the obvious ones, as you pointed out, like "him", "that", "for", "and".
*''Eft'': after
*''axode'': asked (the x>ks is called metathesis, and people still do it (improperly) in English today when they say "aksed")
*''engla'': angel
*''heofonum'': heaven (alright, there's a case ending, but it still looks like heaven!)

:: Great work! Go ahead and add a paragraph in the lecture with your observations, if you like. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh my gosh, thanks for that fast response! I hardly had time to finish reading about feudalism, which I found developed in France a couple of centuries before England. Since Middle English borrowed the word "tyranny" from French "tyrannie", is it possible that the concept may have existed in France/French before we grabbed the word in the 14th century? The same could be said I guess for numbers. I might not understand what you're trying to say, but Latin had plenty of numbers, so did German and others (Hebrew, Arabic?), and they were all around before English was even on the horizon! (My girlfriend is a linguistics major and talks about etymology ALL the time. It's a good thing I'm equally interested in it :)

:::: I don't see any contradictions with the lecture in what you say above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:::: ''There would have been no concept of "tyranny" under feudalism before that time.'' My only point was just that maybe the concept of tyranny existed before the English word, in the French word "tyrannie", or Latin, or Greek (where it ultimately came from). But anymore I'm not trying to point out that anything's wrong, per se, just expanding.
::::I've never gotten a response from you before, it's nice to finally "meet" you! [[User:JParker|JParker]] 18:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Hi JParker! [http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/new_to_old_english_t.htm This dictionary has "nýdgeweald" for "tyranny"]. Obviously the concept is older than that. On numbers, you may be interested by [http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml Numbers in over 5000 languages]. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Andrew, how are you defining ''somewhat primitive'' with regard to Old English? The sentence looks a bit like you're saying it's primitive because we can't understand it today; I'm sure this isn't what you mean. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:55, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Denise, in response to your comment and in explanation of alteration of some of your edits, we don't subscribe to the fallacious view that all languages are equal. See [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]] for how English lacked terms for concepts and then developed them anew. Old English lacked those and many other terms, and had a vocabulary that was only a tiny fraction of the vocabulary of English today. That makes it primitive, despite how much liberals may pretend that is politically incorrect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Don't worry, I was only asking what your definition was as a matter of interest, I wasn't pushing any fallcious views :). I just think that you might usefully rewrite the sentence to uncouple the first half (that we can't understand it today) from the second half (it is primitive).
:: To check - are you saying that bigger lexicons (more lexemes?) are a sufficient or merely a necessary property of a language to make it less primitive than another language? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Denise, discussion is not productive if you insist that all languages are equal. That point of view is a dead end and makes further inquiry pointless.

::: Big vocabularies are advantageous. Words that express powerful, important concepts (as in [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]]) are advantageous. I realize that doesn't fit the politically correct dogma that all languages are somehow equivalent, but we're going to teach the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Did I ''say'' all languages were equal? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Denise, regardless of whether you admit it or not, your view that most or all languages are somehow equal is not conducive to productive inquiry. I teach the truth and do not waste time trying to cater to linguistic political correctness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Andrew, you are ascribing to me a view that I don't hold. I find it ''entirely plausible'' that one language may be more efficient or more expressive or easier to acquire (for instance, I'm told that Chinese is very difficult to learn as a non-native) or less ambiguous or whatever than another - and furthermore that these properties may be measured empirically! I just don't think (in the absence of evidence) that the number of lexemes (or inflected words) is likely to be good measure of most of these properties.
:::::: If you want to point me at a paper or book that describes what you mean, I'm happy to read it - there are, after all, a good number of conservative Christian universities in the US and elsewhere, many of these will have linguistics departments whose ideological credentials you presumably do not find objectionable - why not let me read up on what you mean? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 14:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Genocide==

Sorry, are you actually teaching children that there were no genocides before the 20th Century? Really? The original inhabitants of Tasmania would be surprised to hear that. Or at least they would be if they had not all been killed in a Genocide. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:Kim, you have to be more substantive than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Every single member of the population of Tasmania was killed. How would you describe that if not as a genocide?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Unsourced is how I would describe it. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Kim, you haven't even convinced me you understand what "genocide" means, and you provide no dates, details, links, etc. As I said, you're not going to persuade anyone that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Very well, a few dates for you.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Victims
! Killers
! Dates
|-
| Aleuts
| Russians
| 1745-70
|-
| Beothuk Indians
| French, Micmaws
| 1497-1829
|-
| Caribbean Indians
| Spaniards
| 1492-1600
|-
| Bushmen, Hottentots
| Boers
| 1652-1795
|-
| Aboriginees
| Australians
| 1788-1928
|-
| Tasmanians
| Australians
| 1800-1876
|-
| Morioris
| Maoris
| 1835
|}

Also, an interesting quote, guess who said it.. "The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devestation of their settlements. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more"

One more: "This unfortunate race.. have justified extermination".

Sorry, but the idea that "[t]he systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" is a 20th century phenomenom is frankly laughable. Sorry, but just because the word is new does not mean the practice is new. Just as the emergence of the word "six" into English does not mean that people could only count to five before that, so the fact that the word genocide did not exist says nothing about wether it happened. In fact, I am not even certain why someone would think that was the case. Would you agree that homeschooling did not occur before 1980?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 14:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: I think that the phrase "war of extermination" or "extirpation" was used prior to the emergence of "genocide". [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 14:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Kim, I don't think you even understand what "genocide" is. It's not one side defeating the other in war. Also, please do yourself a favor and learn how to spell basic words like "phenomenon" and "whether".

: Give us your very best example of what you think was genocide before the 20th century, with details and your very best link describing it. I doubt you'll find a single one that fits the traditional meaning of the word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I quoted what the word genocide means. It means "[t]he systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" Each of the items in the list above meets that description. It is rather obvious though that you do not have an open mind on this issue. I will leave this discussion for others.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:31, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Just to prevent this turning into a longer argument than necessary, shall we agree in advance to go by the Merriam-Webster definition "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" as the traditional meaning? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 15:29, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I did a web-search for ''the black war''. The first link returned was http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/tasmania.html . An excerpt:
::::''"The Black War of Van Diemen's Land" was the name of the official campaign of terror directed against the Black people of Tasmania. Between 1803 and 1830 the Black aborigines of Tasmania were reduced from an estimated five-thousand people to less than seventy-five. An article published December 1, 1826 in the Tasmanian Colonial Times declared that:''
:::::'''''"We make no pompous display of Philanthropy. The Government must remove the natives--if not, they will be hunted down like wild beasts and destroyed!"'''''
::::''With the declaration of martial law in November 1828, Whites were authorized to kill Blacks on sight. Although the Blacks offered a heroic resistance, the wooden clubs and sharpened sticks of the Aborigines were no match against the firepower, ruthlessness, and savagery exercised by the Europeans against them. In time, a bounty was declared on Blacks, and "Black catching," as it was called, soon became a big business; five pounds for each adult Aborigine, two pounds for each child. After considering proposals to capture them for sale as slaves, poison or trap them, or hunt them with dogs, the government settled on continued bounties and the use of mounted police.
::::''On May 7, 1876, Truganini, the last full-blood Black person in Tasmania, died at seventy-three years of age. Her mother had been stabbed to death by a European. Her sister was kidnapped by Europeans. Her intended husband was drowned by two Europeans in her presence, while his murderers raped her.''
::::''It might be accurately said that Truganini's numerous personal sufferings typify the tragedy of the Black people of Tasmania as a whole. She was the very last. "Don't let them cut me up," she begged the doctor as she lay dying. After her burial, Truganini's body was exhumed, and her skeleton, strung upon wires and placed upright in a box, became for many years the most popular exhibit in the Tasmanian Museum and remained on display until 1947. Finally, in 1976--the centenary years of Truganini's death--despite the museum's objections, her skeleton was cremated and her ashes scattered at sea.''

Surely Conservapedia's own Genocide article provides a pre-20th Century example of genocide:
:But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee
Deuteronomy 20:17 --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 16:56, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::SCarter got in ahead of me, but I’ll copy and paste the following anyway…..
Tasmania was first settled in 1804. Up to the 1820s there was sporadic bloodshed but no organised policy of “getting rid of the Aboriginals”. In that decade there was a greatly increased rate of land grants, especially in the Midlands, to settlers. In 1828 the first definite anti-Aboriginal policy was enacted by Governor Arthur whereby any Aboriginal found on “settled land” - which by then was a fair proportion of the traditional hunting grounds of the natives – was to treated as a criminal and settlers could use whatever force necessary to keep these people off the settled land. There began a policy of “partition” whereby the Aboriginal people would be kept in certain specified areas.
:To cut a long story short, within the next 50 years, every single full-blood Tasmanian Aboriginal had died, the last one being an elderly female, Truganini, in Hobart in 1876. They were shot, or starved, or caught European diseases or pined away in places alien to their ancestral tribal lands. Wherever the blame lies, the fact reminds that government policy and British land hunger caused the death of a race. (The Tasmanian and mainland Aboriginals were not the same – similar, but different.)
:I refer to
*the ''Australian Dictionary of Biography'', Volume 6, Melbourne University Press, 1976, p. 305.

*“Van Diemen’s Land” by James Boyce, pub 2008. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::Coupled with that, the idea that if the word doesn't exist the concept doesn't exist is wrong in every sense. To this day English speakers are capable of embracing and understanding concepts that have no specific English word ascribed to the meaning of the concept. A patently obvious example of this is the smell of freshly cut grass. This is a concept that all of us understand immediately, a concept that would have been around for millenia, and yet there is no word in English for the concept of the smell of fershly cut grass. If you want to say that something smells like freshly cut grass you have to say 'it smells like freshly cut grass'. Now, say that I invent a word to describe that smell: chlorowhiff, and go further and say that chlorowhiff becomes popular in use and enters the dictionary. the word was invented on the 9th March 2009 but it is immediately and patently obvious that the concept existed long before the creation of the word. Or consider how long humanity has been eating chicken. Those people who have eaten chicken (which is probably all of us reading this) understand the concept of the taste of chicken, but English has no word that specifically means the taste of chicken. If we want to say that something tastes of chicken then we say 'it tastes of chicken', yet the lack of a word in English that means 'the taste of chicken' doesn't mean that Enlgish speakers haven't grasped the concept. Or how about words in other languages. Take the Welsh word 'hiraedd' or the Japanese word 'giri'. Both words express concepts that English speakers are capable of understanding and even experiencing, yet neither word has an equivalent English word that defines the concepts enshrined in those two words. As to the word genocide, well it is a word that, in all likelyhood, was dreamt up by committee as a way of sounding official in describing a concept that has been around for as long as humanity has been around.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 18:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T18:54:04Z

Ieuan: Literacy skills of my own might help I suppose....lol

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T18:52:06Z

Ieuan: /* Reply to the Above */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access people have or had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T17:33:26Z

Ieuan: /* Reply to the Above */

Fareed Zakaria

2009-03-09T14:59:05Z

Ieuan: Sub-sections

[[Image:Fareed.jpg|right|thumb| Fareed Zakarai]]

Born on 20th January 1964,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821472/ Fareed Zakaria]</ref> in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, ''Fareed Zakaria'' is now a naturalized American. He is currently a journalist, author and television host specializing in world affairs.

==Family life==

Fareed Zakaria was born to a Muslim family involved with politics and journalism in India. His father was Rafiq Zakaria, a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and India's freedom movement. Rafiq Zakaria was also an Islamic scholar. Fareed Zakaria's mother, Fatima Zakaria, has worked as an editor of the Sunday edition of the ''Times of India''. Fareed Zakaria lives in New York with his wife Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, a son Omar, and daughters Lila and Sofia.

Zakaria self-identifies as a [[Muslim]] but has stated ''"I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref> and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine.<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Eduacation==

Fareed Zakaira attended the private Anglican Cathedral and John Connon School located in Mumbai. He graduated Yale College and received a PhD in political science from Harvard University.

==Journalism==
Zakaria became managing editor of the prestigious magazine ''Foreign Affairs'' after working at a Harvard research project that was examining American foreign policy. In October 2000 Zakaria was named editor of ''Newsweek International''. He writes a regular column for ''Newsweek'', which also appears in ''Newsweek International'' and the ''Washington Post.'' Zakaria has worked as a columnist for the web publication Slate<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/3519/</ref>, where he wrote about wine, a passion of Zakaria's that has led him to claim that wine ''"is the perfect gift"''<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Television==

Zakaria has hosted or been in a number of TV shows, including:
* ''Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria'' (PBS)
* was a news analyst on '''This Week with George Stephanopoulos'' (ABC 2000-2007)
* ''Fareed Zakaria GPS''(Global Public Square) (premiered CNN in June 2008).<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Author==

Zakaria is also the author and/or co-editor of the following works:
*''The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2008) ISBN 0-393-06235-X
*''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
*''From Wealth to Power'', Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0-691-04496-1
*''The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs'', edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 0-465-00170-X

==Political Views==

Zakaria has had a wide variety of political views and identities. In the 1980s he was seen as being [[neoconservative]] who supported President Ronald Reagen, but currently identifies himself as being "centrist"<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>, whilst ''Forbes,'' in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of ''"The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_18.html?thisSpeed=15000</ref>. Zakaria has also stated that he does not believe himself as being devoted to one idealogy as ''""I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>

In ''The Future of Freedom'', Zakaria puts forward the argument that democracy works best where "constitutional liberalism" already has a history. Zakaria points out that in history liberty tends to be a prelude to democracy and that countries that hold elections without first attempting to undertake a program of liberalization such as an increase in personal freedoms, rule of law and economic liberalization end up failing by becoming ''"illiberal democracies"'' such as Iran. As such Zakaria was critical of President [[George W. Bush]]'s administrations drive to hold elections in the Middle-East without seeing that the building of institutions of law, governance and liberty in the same states needed the same vigour and zeal.<ref>''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4</ref>

[[Image:Newsweekcovermarch9.jpg|thumb| Front Cover, [[Newsweek]], 9th March]]
===9-11===
In regards to the 9/11 attacks Zakaria has argued that Islamic extremism was the product of stagnation and the non-development of society in many parts of the Arab world. At the heart of Zakaria'a argument is that much of the extremism common to Islamic terrorists was that their ideals grew in states that had experienced decades of tyrannical and corrupt rule that had been marketed to its people as being a Western-style secular government through the use of misinformation and propaganda. The response to such forms of government saw the growth of an opposition that was religious, violent and, with the rise of global communication and the internet, increasingly organised, and increasingly willing to overthrow governments and replace them with violent, repressive theocracies, or at least a form of government that had deep similarities to a theocracy. Zakaria has also argued in a cover essay for the 9th March edition of Newsweek that ''"The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years — including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.''

''How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago."''<ref>http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8607</ref>

=== On Iraq ===

Initialy supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zakaria stated at the time, ''"The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."''<ref>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/</ref>. Zakaria also argued for an operation sanctioned by the UN and using a force of 400 000 troops, a number that was higher than the number of troops actually deployed by the then administration. Zakaria also called for an international occupation force, similar to that of Kosova.

However, after the invasion Zakaria frequently criticized much of the occupation of Iraq<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>, and opposed the strategy of an Iraq surge in March 2007, instead arguing that the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 60 000.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>

On January 2009 Zakaria stated that the surge had ''"succeeded"''.<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/11/mccains_downfall_republican_fo.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</ref>

== Critiscms ==

Amongst the critiscms that Zakaris has received are:

*In the piece ''"Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite"'', written for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization, Roger Bybee (member of the Wisconsin Citizen Action) wrote that Zakaria's ''"fervent embrace of the perspectives of the powerful keeps him in a state of denial regarding fundamental realities of the global economy."''<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593</ref>
*Eric Tyson, a noted personal finance expert and author cited in his newspaper column numerous flaws in the arguments that Zakaria put forward in a cover story for Newsweek in regard to the latteer stages of the financial crisis of 2008.<ref>http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081111</ref>
*President of the Pakistan Society of Criminology, Mr. Fasihuddin, criticized Zakaria in the article ''""Fareed Zakaria on Terrorism"'' (which was published on the website of Pakistan Society of Criminology), alledging that Zakaria failed to base his article on any credible data and that Zakaria lacks adequate knowledge of NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) and the surrounding tribal areas. Mr. Fusihuddin states that Zakaria and his associates are ''"Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX."''<ref>http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FareedZakariaonTerrorism.doc</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html Zakaria webpage]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Zakaria, Fareed}}

Fareed Zakaria

2009-03-09T14:56:12Z

Ieuan: /* Journalism */

[[Image:Fareed.jpg|right|thumb| Fareed Zakarai]]

Born on 20th January 1964,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821472/ Fareed Zakaria]</ref> in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, ''Fareed Zakaria'' is now a naturalized American. He is currently a journalist, author and television host specializing in world affairs.

==Family life==

Fareed Zakaria was born to a Muslim family involved with politics and journalism in India. His father was Rafiq Zakaria, a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and India's freedom movement. Rafiq Zakaria was also an Islamic scholar. Fareed Zakaria's mother, Fatima Zakaria, has worked as an editor of the Sunday edition of the ''Times of India''. Fareed Zakaria lives in New York with his wife Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, a son Omar, and daughters Lila and Sofia.

Zakaria self-identifies as a [[Muslim]] but has stated ''"I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref> and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine.<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Eduacation==

Fareed Zakaira attended the private Anglican Cathedral and John Connon School located in Mumbai. He graduated Yale College and received a PhD in political science from Harvard University.

==Journalism==
Zakaria became managing editor of the prestigious magazine ''Foreign Affairs'' after working at a Harvard research project that was examining American foreign policy. In October 2000 Zakaria was named editor of ''Newsweek International''. He writes a regular column for ''Newsweek'', which also appears in ''Newsweek International'' and the ''Washington Post.'' Zakaria has worked as a columnist for the web publication Slate<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/3519/</ref>, where he wrote about wine, a passion of Zakaria's that has led him to claim that wine ''"is the perfect gift"''<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Television==

Zakaria has hosted or been in a number of TV shows, including:
* ''Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria'' (PBS)
* was a news analyst on '''This Week with George Stephanopoulos'' (ABC 2000-2007)
* ''Fareed Zakaria GPS''(Global Public Square) (premiered CNN in June 2008).<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Author==

Zakaria is also the author and/or co-editor of the following works:
*''The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2008) ISBN 0-393-06235-X
*''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
*''From Wealth to Power'', Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0-691-04496-1
*''The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs'', edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 0-465-00170-X

==Political Views==

Zakaria has had a wide variety of political views and identities. In the 1980s he was seen as being [[neoconservative]] who supported President Ronald Reagen, but currently identifies himself as being "centrist"<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>, whilst ''Forbes,'' in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of ''"The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_18.html?thisSpeed=15000</ref>. Zakaria has also stated that he does not believe himself as being devoted to one idealogy as ''""I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>

In ''The Future of Freedom'', Zakaria puts forward the argument that democracy works best where "constitutional liberalism" already has a history. Zakaria points out that in history liberty tends to be a prelude to democracy and that countries that hold elections without first attempting to undertake a program of liberalization such as an increase in personal freedoms, rule of law and economic liberalization end up failing by becoming ''"illiberal democracies"'' such as Iran. As such Zakaria was critical of President [[George W. Bush]]'s administrations drive to hold elections in the Middle-East without seeing that the building of institutions of law, governance and liberty in the same states needed the same vigour and zeal.<ref>''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4</ref>

[[Image:Newsweekcovermarch9.jpg|thumb| Front Cover, [[Newsweek]], 9th March]]
==9-11==
In regards to the 9/11 attacks Zakaria has argued that Islamic extremism was the product of stagnation and the non-development of society in many parts of the Arab world. At the heart of Zakaria'a argument is that much of the extremism common to Islamic terrorists was that their ideals grew in states that had experienced decades of tyrannical and corrupt rule that had been marketed to its people as being a Western-style secular government through the use of misinformation and propaganda. The response to such forms of government saw the growth of an opposition that was religious, violent and, with the rise of global communication and the internet, increasingly organised, and increasingly willing to overthrow governments and replace them with violent, repressive theocracies, or at least a form of government that had deep similarities to a theocracy. Zakaria has also argued in a cover essay for the 9th March edition of Newsweek that ''"The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years — including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.''

''How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago."''<ref>http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8607</ref>

== On Iraq ==

Initialy supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zakaria stated at the time, ''"The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."''<ref>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/</ref>. Zakaria also argued for an operation sanctioned by the UN and using a force of 400 000 troops, a number that was higher than the number of troops actually deployed by the then administration. Zakaria also called for an international occupation force, similar to that of Kosova.

However, after the invasion Zakaria frequently criticized much of the occupation of Iraq<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>, and opposed the strategy of an Iraq surge in March 2007, instead arguing that the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 60 000.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>

On January 2009 Zakaria stated that the surge had ''"succeeded"''.<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/11/mccains_downfall_republican_fo.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</ref>

== Critiscms ==

Amongst the critiscms that Zakaris has received are:

*In the piece ''"Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite"'', written for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization, Roger Bybee (member of the Wisconsin Citizen Action) wrote that Zakaria's ''"fervent embrace of the perspectives of the powerful keeps him in a state of denial regarding fundamental realities of the global economy."''<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593</ref>
*Eric Tyson, a noted personal finance expert and author cited in his newspaper column numerous flaws in the arguments that Zakaria put forward in a cover story for Newsweek in regard to the latteer stages of the financial crisis of 2008.<ref>http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081111</ref>
*President of the Pakistan Society of Criminology, Mr. Fasihuddin, criticized Zakaria in the article ''""Fareed Zakaria on Terrorism"'' (which was published on the website of Pakistan Society of Criminology), alledging that Zakaria failed to base his article on any credible data and that Zakaria lacks adequate knowledge of NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) and the surrounding tribal areas. Mr. Fusihuddin states that Zakaria and his associates are ''"Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX."''<ref>http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FareedZakariaonTerrorism.doc</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html Zakaria webpage]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Zakaria, Fareed}}

Fareed Zakaria

2009-03-09T14:55:35Z

Ieuan: /* Eduacation */

[[Image:Fareed.jpg|right|thumb| Fareed Zakarai]]

Born on 20th January 1964,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821472/ Fareed Zakaria]</ref> in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, ''Fareed Zakaria'' is now a naturalized American. He is currently a journalist, author and television host specializing in world affairs.

==Family life==

Fareed Zakaria was born to a Muslim family involved with politics and journalism in India. His father was Rafiq Zakaria, a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and India's freedom movement. Rafiq Zakaria was also an Islamic scholar. Fareed Zakaria's mother, Fatima Zakaria, has worked as an editor of the Sunday edition of the ''Times of India''. Fareed Zakaria lives in New York with his wife Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, a son Omar, and daughters Lila and Sofia.

Zakaria self-identifies as a [[Muslim]] but has stated ''"I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref> and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine.<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Eduacation==

Fareed Zakaira attended the private Anglican Cathedral and John Connon School located in Mumbai. He graduated Yale College and received a PhD in political science from Harvard University.

==Journalism==
Zakaria became managing editor of the prestigious magazine ''Foreign Affairs'' after workin at a Harvard research project that was examining American foreign policy. In October 2000 Zakaria was named editor of ''Newsweek International''. He writes a regular column for ''Newsweek'', which also appears in ''Newsweek International'' and the ''Washington Post.'' Zakaria has worked as a columnist for the web publication Slate<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/3519/</ref>, where he wrote about wine, a passion of Zakaria's that has led him to claim that wine ''"is the perfect gift"''<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Television==

Zakaria has hosted or been in a number of TV shows, including:
* ''Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria'' (PBS)
* was a news analyst on '''This Week with George Stephanopoulos'' (ABC 2000-2007)
* ''Fareed Zakaria GPS''(Global Public Square) (premiered CNN in June 2008).<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Author==

Zakaria is also the author and/or co-editor of the following works:
*''The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2008) ISBN 0-393-06235-X
*''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
*''From Wealth to Power'', Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0-691-04496-1
*''The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs'', edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 0-465-00170-X

==Political Views==

Zakaria has had a wide variety of political views and identities. In the 1980s he was seen as being [[neoconservative]] who supported President Ronald Reagen, but currently identifies himself as being "centrist"<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>, whilst ''Forbes,'' in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of ''"The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_18.html?thisSpeed=15000</ref>. Zakaria has also stated that he does not believe himself as being devoted to one idealogy as ''""I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>

In ''The Future of Freedom'', Zakaria puts forward the argument that democracy works best where "constitutional liberalism" already has a history. Zakaria points out that in history liberty tends to be a prelude to democracy and that countries that hold elections without first attempting to undertake a program of liberalization such as an increase in personal freedoms, rule of law and economic liberalization end up failing by becoming ''"illiberal democracies"'' such as Iran. As such Zakaria was critical of President [[George W. Bush]]'s administrations drive to hold elections in the Middle-East without seeing that the building of institutions of law, governance and liberty in the same states needed the same vigour and zeal.<ref>''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4</ref>

[[Image:Newsweekcovermarch9.jpg|thumb| Front Cover, [[Newsweek]], 9th March]]
==9-11==
In regards to the 9/11 attacks Zakaria has argued that Islamic extremism was the product of stagnation and the non-development of society in many parts of the Arab world. At the heart of Zakaria'a argument is that much of the extremism common to Islamic terrorists was that their ideals grew in states that had experienced decades of tyrannical and corrupt rule that had been marketed to its people as being a Western-style secular government through the use of misinformation and propaganda. The response to such forms of government saw the growth of an opposition that was religious, violent and, with the rise of global communication and the internet, increasingly organised, and increasingly willing to overthrow governments and replace them with violent, repressive theocracies, or at least a form of government that had deep similarities to a theocracy. Zakaria has also argued in a cover essay for the 9th March edition of Newsweek that ''"The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years — including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.''

''How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago."''<ref>http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8607</ref>

== On Iraq ==

Initialy supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zakaria stated at the time, ''"The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."''<ref>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/</ref>. Zakaria also argued for an operation sanctioned by the UN and using a force of 400 000 troops, a number that was higher than the number of troops actually deployed by the then administration. Zakaria also called for an international occupation force, similar to that of Kosova.

However, after the invasion Zakaria frequently criticized much of the occupation of Iraq<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>, and opposed the strategy of an Iraq surge in March 2007, instead arguing that the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 60 000.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>

On January 2009 Zakaria stated that the surge had ''"succeeded"''.<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/11/mccains_downfall_republican_fo.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</ref>

== Critiscms ==

Amongst the critiscms that Zakaris has received are:

*In the piece ''"Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite"'', written for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization, Roger Bybee (member of the Wisconsin Citizen Action) wrote that Zakaria's ''"fervent embrace of the perspectives of the powerful keeps him in a state of denial regarding fundamental realities of the global economy."''<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593</ref>
*Eric Tyson, a noted personal finance expert and author cited in his newspaper column numerous flaws in the arguments that Zakaria put forward in a cover story for Newsweek in regard to the latteer stages of the financial crisis of 2008.<ref>http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081111</ref>
*President of the Pakistan Society of Criminology, Mr. Fasihuddin, criticized Zakaria in the article ''""Fareed Zakaria on Terrorism"'' (which was published on the website of Pakistan Society of Criminology), alledging that Zakaria failed to base his article on any credible data and that Zakaria lacks adequate knowledge of NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) and the surrounding tribal areas. Mr. Fusihuddin states that Zakaria and his associates are ''"Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX."''<ref>http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FareedZakariaonTerrorism.doc</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html Zakaria webpage]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Zakaria, Fareed}}

Fareed Zakaria

2009-03-09T14:54:22Z

Ieuan: /* Family life */

[[Image:Fareed.jpg|right|thumb| Fareed Zakarai]]

Born on 20th January 1964,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821472/ Fareed Zakaria]</ref> in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, ''Fareed Zakaria'' is now a naturalized American. He is currently a journalist, author and television host specializing in world affairs.

==Family life==

Fareed Zakaria was born to a Muslim family involved with politics and journalism in India. His father was Rafiq Zakaria, a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and India's freedom movement. Rafiq Zakaria was also an Islamic scholar. Fareed Zakaria's mother, Fatima Zakaria, has worked as an editor of the Sunday edition of the ''Times of India''. Fareed Zakaria lives in New York with his wife Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, a son Omar, and daughters Lila and Sofia.

Zakaria self-identifies as a [[Muslim]] but has stated ''"I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref> and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine.<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Eduacation==

Fareed Zakaira attended the private Anglican Cathedral and John Connon School located in Mumbai. He graduated Yale College and received a PhD in political science from Harvard attended Harvard University.
==Journalism==
Zakaria became managing editor of the prestigious magazine ''Foreign Affairs'' after workin at a Harvard research project that was examining American foreign policy. In October 2000 Zakaria was named editor of ''Newsweek International''. He writes a regular column for ''Newsweek'', which also appears in ''Newsweek International'' and the ''Washington Post.'' Zakaria has worked as a columnist for the web publication Slate<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/3519/</ref>, where he wrote about wine, a passion of Zakaria's that has led him to claim that wine ''"is the perfect gift"''<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Television==

Zakaria has hosted or been in a number of TV shows, including:
* ''Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria'' (PBS)
* was a news analyst on '''This Week with George Stephanopoulos'' (ABC 2000-2007)
* ''Fareed Zakaria GPS''(Global Public Square) (premiered CNN in June 2008).<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Author==

Zakaria is also the author and/or co-editor of the following works:
*''The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2008) ISBN 0-393-06235-X
*''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
*''From Wealth to Power'', Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0-691-04496-1
*''The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs'', edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 0-465-00170-X

==Political Views==

Zakaria has had a wide variety of political views and identities. In the 1980s he was seen as being [[neoconservative]] who supported President Ronald Reagen, but currently identifies himself as being "centrist"<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>, whilst ''Forbes,'' in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of ''"The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_18.html?thisSpeed=15000</ref>. Zakaria has also stated that he does not believe himself as being devoted to one idealogy as ''""I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>

In ''The Future of Freedom'', Zakaria puts forward the argument that democracy works best where "constitutional liberalism" already has a history. Zakaria points out that in history liberty tends to be a prelude to democracy and that countries that hold elections without first attempting to undertake a program of liberalization such as an increase in personal freedoms, rule of law and economic liberalization end up failing by becoming ''"illiberal democracies"'' such as Iran. As such Zakaria was critical of President [[George W. Bush]]'s administrations drive to hold elections in the Middle-East without seeing that the building of institutions of law, governance and liberty in the same states needed the same vigour and zeal.<ref>''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4</ref>

[[Image:Newsweekcovermarch9.jpg|thumb| Front Cover, [[Newsweek]], 9th March]]
==9-11==
In regards to the 9/11 attacks Zakaria has argued that Islamic extremism was the product of stagnation and the non-development of society in many parts of the Arab world. At the heart of Zakaria'a argument is that much of the extremism common to Islamic terrorists was that their ideals grew in states that had experienced decades of tyrannical and corrupt rule that had been marketed to its people as being a Western-style secular government through the use of misinformation and propaganda. The response to such forms of government saw the growth of an opposition that was religious, violent and, with the rise of global communication and the internet, increasingly organised, and increasingly willing to overthrow governments and replace them with violent, repressive theocracies, or at least a form of government that had deep similarities to a theocracy. Zakaria has also argued in a cover essay for the 9th March edition of Newsweek that ''"The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years — including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.''

''How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago."''<ref>http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8607</ref>

== On Iraq ==

Initialy supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zakaria stated at the time, ''"The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."''<ref>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/</ref>. Zakaria also argued for an operation sanctioned by the UN and using a force of 400 000 troops, a number that was higher than the number of troops actually deployed by the then administration. Zakaria also called for an international occupation force, similar to that of Kosova.

However, after the invasion Zakaria frequently criticized much of the occupation of Iraq<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>, and opposed the strategy of an Iraq surge in March 2007, instead arguing that the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 60 000.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>

On January 2009 Zakaria stated that the surge had ''"succeeded"''.<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/11/mccains_downfall_republican_fo.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</ref>

== Critiscms ==

Amongst the critiscms that Zakaris has received are:

*In the piece ''"Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite"'', written for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization, Roger Bybee (member of the Wisconsin Citizen Action) wrote that Zakaria's ''"fervent embrace of the perspectives of the powerful keeps him in a state of denial regarding fundamental realities of the global economy."''<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593</ref>
*Eric Tyson, a noted personal finance expert and author cited in his newspaper column numerous flaws in the arguments that Zakaria put forward in a cover story for Newsweek in regard to the latteer stages of the financial crisis of 2008.<ref>http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081111</ref>
*President of the Pakistan Society of Criminology, Mr. Fasihuddin, criticized Zakaria in the article ''""Fareed Zakaria on Terrorism"'' (which was published on the website of Pakistan Society of Criminology), alledging that Zakaria failed to base his article on any credible data and that Zakaria lacks adequate knowledge of NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) and the surrounding tribal areas. Mr. Fusihuddin states that Zakaria and his associates are ''"Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX."''<ref>http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FareedZakariaonTerrorism.doc</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html Zakaria webpage]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Zakaria, Fareed}}

Fareed Zakaria

2009-03-09T00:42:35Z

Ieuan: Added flesh to article. There was a statement made that might have been potentially libelous (and was unsupported by the evidence offered), so removed just in case.

[[Image:Fareed.jpg|right|thumb| Fareed Zakarai]]

Born on 20th January 1964,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821472/ Fareed Zakaria]</ref> in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, ''Fareed Zakaria'' is now a naturalized American. He is currently a journalist, author and television host. Zakaria self-identifies as a [[Muslim]] but has stated ''"I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref> and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine.<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Family life==

Fareed Zakaria was born to a Muslim family involved with politics and journalism in India. His father was Rafiq Zakaria, a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and India's freedom movement. Rafiq Zakaria was also an Islamic scholar. Fareed Zakaria's mother, Fatima Zakaria, has worked as an editor of the Sunday edition Times of India. Fareed Zakaria lives in New York with his wife Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, a son Omar, and daughters Lila and Sofia.

==Eduacation==

Fareed Zakaira attended the Anglican founded, privately run Cathedral and John Connon School located in Mumbai. When attending university he went to Yale University, where he received a B.A. and then attended Harvard University, where he received a Ph.D. Both degrees were in the field of political science.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Journalism==

Zakaria was offered the position of, and accepted the post of managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine after being involved at Harvard with a research project that was examining American foreign policy. During October 2000 Zakaria was then named editor of Newsweek International. He writes a regular column for Newsweek. This column also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref> In addition to this Zakaria has worked as a columnist for the web publication Slate<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/3519/</ref>, where he wrote about wine, a passion of Zakaria's that has led him to claim that wine ''"is the perfect gift"''<ref>http://www.slate.us/id/3516/</ref>

==Television==

Zakaria has hosted or been in a number of TV shows, including:
* ''Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria'' (PBS)
* was a news analyst on '''This Week with George Stephanopoulos'' (ABC 2000-2007)
* ''Fareed Zakaria GPS''(Global Public Square) (premiered CNN in June 2008).<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/about.html</ref>

==Author==

Zakaria is also the author and/or co-editor of the following works:
*''The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2008) ISBN 0-393-06235-X
*''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4
*''From Wealth to Power'', Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0-691-04496-1
*''The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs'', edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 0-465-00170-X

==Political Views==

Zakaria has had a wide variety of political views and identities. In the past he was seen as being neoconservative who supported President Ronald Reagen, but currently identifies himself as being "centrist"<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>, whilst Forbes, in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of ''"The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_18.html?thisSpeed=15000</ref>. Zakaria has also stated that he does not believe himself as being devoted to one idealogy as ''""I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"''<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/2</ref>

In ''The Future of Freedom'', Zakaria puts forward the argument that democracy works best where "constitutional liberalism" already has a history. Zakaria points out that in history liberty tends to be a prelude to democracy and that countries that hold elections without first attempting to undertake a program of liberalization such as an increase in personal freedoms, rule of law and economic liberalization end up failing by becoming ''"illiberal democracies"'' such as Iran. As such Zakaria was critical of President George W. Bush's administrations drive to hold elections in the Middle-East without seeing that the building of institutions of law, governance and liberty in the same states needed the same vigour and zeal.<ref>''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad'', Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0-393-04764-4</ref>

[[Image:Newsweekcovermarch9.jpg|thumb| Front Cover, [[Newsweek]], 9th March]]

In regards to the 9/11 attacks Zakaria has argued that Islamic extremeism could be seen as the child of stagnation and the non-development of society in many parts of the Arab world. At the heart of Zakaria'a argument is that much of the extremism common to Islamic terrorists was that their ideals grew in states that had experienced decades of tyrannical and corrupt rule that had been marketed to its people as being a Western-style secular government through the use of misinformation and propaganda. The response to such forms of government saw the growth of an opposition that was religious, violent and, with the rise of global communication and the internet, increasingly organised, and increasingly willing to overthrow governments and replace them with violent, repressive theocracies, or at least a form of government that had deep similarities to a theocracy. Zakaria has also argued in a cover essay for the 9th March edition of Newsweek that ''"The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world — in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years — including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.''

''How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago."''<ref>http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8607</ref>

== On Iraq ==

Initialy supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zakaria stated at the time, ''"The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."''<ref>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/</ref>. Zakaria also argued for an operation sanctioned by the UN and using a force of 400 000 troops, a number that was higher than the number of troops actually deployed by the then administration. Zakaria also called for an international occupation force, similar to that of Kosova.

However, after the invasion Zakaria frequently criticized much of the occupation of Iraq<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>, and opposed the strategy of an Iraq surge in March 2007, instead arguing that the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 60 000.<ref>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/030507.html</ref>

On January 2009 Zakaria stated that the surge had ''"succeeded"''.<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/11/mccains_downfall_republican_fo.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</ref>

== Critiscms ==

Amongst the critiscms that Zakaris has received are:

*In the piece ''"Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite"'', written for the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization, Roger Bybee (member of the Wisconsin Citizen Action) wrote that Zakaria's ''"fervent embrace of the perspectives of the powerful keeps him in a state of denial regarding fundamental realities of the global economy."''<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593</ref>
*Eric Tyson, a noted personal finance expert and author cited in his newspaper column numerous flaws in the arguments that Zakaria put forward in a cover story for Newsweek in regard to the latteer stages of the financial crisis of 2008.<ref>http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081111</ref>
*President of the Pakistan Society of Criminology, Mr. Fasihuddin, criticized Zakaria in the article ''""Fareed Zakaria on Terrorism"'' (which was published on the website of Pakistan Society of Criminology), alledging that Zakaria failed to base his article on any credible data and that Zakaria lacks adequate knowledge of NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) and the surrounding tribal areas. Mr. Fusihuddin states that Zakaria and his associates are ''"Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX."''<ref>http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FareedZakariaonTerrorism.doc</ref>

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

[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)

2009-03-07T23:51:01Z

Ieuan: /* Passage of the bill */

The '''Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009''' is a piece of legislation passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law on the 29th January, 2009 by the then President of the United States, Barack Obama.

The Act supersedes the U.S. Supreme Court decision made in the 2007 case, ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Supreme Court finding in that case ruled that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an lawsuit in regards to a question of equal pay begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck received by the plaintiff. The decision made by the Supreme Court meant that somebody who discovered that they had experienced discrimination in regards to pay, but did not make that discovery for more than six months after having agreed the amount of pay to be received, had no legal recourse to challenge the question of whether they had been discriminated agrainst in the matter of pay. With the implementation of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 any plaintiff who wished to make a claim of pay discrimination had a 180 day statute of limitation timed from the date of the last paycheck that they had received.<ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2831pcs.txt.pdf</ref>

== Passage of the bill ==

The first attempt to pass the bill, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.2831: H.R. 2831] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S1843: S. 1843], failed when the bill was defeated in the Senate in April 2008 when Republicans voted against it. In response the bill was reintroduced to the 111th Congress in January 2009 as [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.11: H.R. 11] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S181: S. 181]. In the House of Representatives the bill passed on the 9th January, 2009 with a vote of 247-171, with 244 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for and 5 Democrats and 166 Republicans voting against (and a combined party total of 15 members not voting).<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-9</ref>. On the 22nd January, 2009, the bill was voted on in the Senate and passed with a vote of 61-36. No Democrat voted against the bill, and all 4 female Republican Senators, as well as Republican Senator Arlen Specter, voted for it. The only Senator not voting was Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy who was unable to vote because of ill-health.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14</ref>

As the bill passed in the Senate was slightly different to the bill passed in the House, the House then voted on S.181 and passed the bill on the 27th January, 2009, by a vote of 250-177, with 247 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for, 5 Democrats and 172 Republicans voting against and a combined party total of 6 members not voting.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-37</ref>

The vote in both the Senate and the House regarding the passage of S.181 is interesting in regards to how the two genders voted in regards to the bill. The combined female vote in the Senate and House supporting S.181 was 74, whilst the total number of votes against was 17. In comparison the total male vote in the Senate and House supporting S.181 was 237, whilst the total number of votes against was 196. In percentage terms this means that the female vote split 81.32% for, 18.68% against, whilst the male vote split 54.73% for, 45.27% against. Those figures do not take into account those not voting.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14</ref><ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-37</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Law]]

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)

2009-03-07T18:56:59Z

Ieuan: Spelling

The '''Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009''' is a piece of legislation passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law on the 29th January, 2009 by the then President of the United States, Barack Obama.

The Act supersedes the U.S. Supreme Court decision made in the 2007 case, ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Supreme Court finding in that case ruled that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an lawsuit in regards to a question of equal pay begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck received by the plaintiff. The decision made by the Supreme Court meant that somebody who discovered that they had experienced discrimination in regards to pay, but did not make that discovery for more than six months after having agreed the amount of pay to be received, had no legal recourse to challenge the question of whether they had been discriminated agrainst in the matter of pay. With the implementation of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 any plaintiff who wished to make a claim of pay discrimination had a 180 day statute of limitation timed from the date of the last paycheck that they had received.<ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2831pcs.txt.pdf</ref>

== Passage of the bill ==

The first attempt to pass the bill, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.2831: H.R. 2831] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S1843: S. 1843], failed when the bill was defeated in the Senate in April 2008 when Republicans voted against it. In response the bill was reintroduced to the 111th Congress in January 2009 as [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.11: H.R. 11] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S181: S. 181]. In the House of Representatives the bill passed on the 9th January, 2009 with a vote of 247-171, with 244 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for and 5 Democrats and 166 Republicans voting against (and a combined party total of 15 members not voting).<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-9</ref>. On the 22nd January, 2009, the bill was voted on in the Senate and passed with a vote of 61-36. No Democrat voted against the bill, and all 4 female Republican Senators, as well as Republican Senator Arlen Specter, voted for it. The only Senator not voting was Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy who was unable to vote because of ill-health.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14</ref>.

As the bill passed in the Senate was slightly different to the bill passed in the House, the House then voted on S.181 and passed the bill on the 27th January, 2009, by a vote of 250-177, with 247 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for, 5 Democrats and 172 Republicans voting against and a combined party total of 6 members not voting.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-37</ref>.

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

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)

2009-03-07T18:51:24Z

Ieuan: New page: The '''Lilly Ledbatter Fair Pay Act of 2009''' is a piece of legislation passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law on the 29th January, 2009 by the then President of t...

The '''Lilly Ledbatter Fair Pay Act of 2009''' is a piece of legislation passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law on the 29th January, 2009 by the then President of the United States, Barack Obama.

The Act supersedes the U.S. Supreme Court decision made in the 2007 case, ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Supreme Court finding in that case ruled that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an lawsuit in regards to a question of equal pay begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck received by the plaintiff. The decision made by the Supreme Court meant that somebody who discovered that they had experienced discrimination in regards to pay, but did not make that discovery for more than six months after having agreed the amount of pay to be received, had no legal recourse to challenge the question of whether they had been discriminated agrainst in the matter of pay. With the implementation of the Lilly Ledbatter Fair Pay Act of 2009 any plaintiff who wished to make a claim of pay discrimination had a 180 day statute of limitation timed from the date of the last paycheck that they had received.<ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2831pcs.txt.pdf</ref>

== Passage of the bill ==

The first attempt to pass the bill, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.2831: H.R. 2831] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S1843: S. 1843], failed when the bill was defeated in the Senate in April 2008 when Republicans voted against it. In response the bill was reintroduced to the 111th Congress in January 2009 as [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.11: H.R. 11] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S181: S. 181]. In the House of Representatives the bill passed on the 9th January, 2009 with a vote of 247-171, with 244 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for and 5 Democrats and 166 Republicans voting against (and a combined party total of 15 members not voting).<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-9</ref>. On the 22nd January, 2009, the bill was voted on in the Senate and passed with a vote of 61-36. No Democrat voted against the bill, and all 4 female Republican Senators, as well as Republican Senator Arlen Specter, voted for it. The only Senator not voting was Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy who was unable to vote because of ill-health.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14</ref>.

As the bill passed in the Senate was slightly different to the bill passed in the House, the House then voted on S.181 and passed the bill on the 27th January, 2009, by a vote of 250-177, with 247 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for, 5 Democrats and 172 Republicans voting against and a combined party total of 6 members not voting.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-37</ref>.

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

Marital rape

2009-03-06T19:11:48Z

Ieuan: Grammar

'''Marital rape''', also known within [[law]] as '''Spousal rape''', is the [[Rape|rape]] of a [[wife]] or [[husband]] by their own partner.

Whether marital rape is considered a [[crime]] depends on where you live in the [[world]]. Almost all developed [[countries]], and many developing countries, recognise marital rape as being a crime, including, but not limited too: [[Argentina]], [[Australia]], [[Austria]], [[Barbados]], [[Belize]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Canada]], [[Croatia]], [[Cyprus]], [[Denmark]], [[Ecuador]], the [[Fiji]] Islands, [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Georgia]], [[Germany]], [[Honduras]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Ireland]], [[Israel]], [[Macedonia]], [[Mexico]], [[Namibia]], [[Nepal]], The [[Netherlands]], [[New Zealand]], [[Norway]], The [[Philippines]], [[Poland]], [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Sri Lanka]], [[Sweden]], [[Taiwan]], [[Trinidad and Tobago]], the [[United Kingdom]] as a whole, the [[United States of America|United States]], [[Uzbekistan]], and [[Zimbabwe]]<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>. However, the degree that these countries consider the seriousness of the crime of marital rape compared to 'stranger' rape varies from country to country, and indeed [[state]] to state. While some countries and states consider that marital rape is not as serious a crime as other forms of rape, other countries and states hold it to be as serious a crime, or a worse crime, as incidence of marital rape is a strong indicator that other forms of [[Domestic violence|domestic abuse]] are also taking place.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== Marital rape and the law ==

Within [[history]] can be seen the concept that marriage includes within it conjugal rights. In Western culture this was often ascribed to the teaching of [[Saint Paul|St. Paul]]:''"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."''<ref>1 Corinthians v7, ch3-5, New King James Version Bible</ref>. As a result of this passage the concept of marital rape was considered to be an impossibility, and this was codified by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1736 publication of his work ''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown''. Within this work Sir Hale wrote that marital rape could not exist: ''"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."''<ref>''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown'', Matthew Hale, Sir</ref> However, it is important to note that Sir Hale wrote this as a matter of legal opinion, not a finding of legal fact, and so technically this concept did not pass into [[common law]], although [[Judge|judges]] treated this piece of opinion as if it had.

As a result of this, judges within the UK treated marital rape as an exception to the rape law until 1991. In 1991 the [[House of Lords]], the highest national court in the UK, sat in judgement on an appeal lodged in the case of ''R v R'' [1992] 1 AC 599. At the heart of the case rested the question of whether one of the parties involved could have have committed rape on the other party (the spouse) given that the two parties were married to each other. The judges found that what had been perceived as [[case law]] regarding marital rape had been made on the basis of Sir Hale's opinion, and that the opinion in question wasn't [[Precedent|precedence]] (as it wasn't the finding of legal fact within a case), then common law granted no exemption for marital rape within the provisions of the statute governing the crime of rape.

In the US marital rape was exempted from prosecution until 1976. In 1975 [[South Dakota]] removed the exception, and now all 50 states consider marital rape to be a crime, although not all states regard it as being as serious as other forms of rape. States that have no legal distinction between rape and marital rape include, but are not necessarily limited to [[Colorado]], [[Delaware]], [[Florida]], [[Georgia]], [[Indiana]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Montana]], [[Nebraska]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[North Carolina]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oregon]], [[Texas]], [[Utah]], [[Vermont]], [[Wisconsin]] and the [[District of Columbia]].<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>

==Effects of Marital rape==

Where people believe that marital rape is a crime, but not as serious a crime as rape by a stranger, there is often found the perception that because the spouses are well known to each other forced intimacy within a marriage is not as traumatic an event as other forms of rape. However, this perception is incorrect. Rape by a stranger, a highly traumatising event itself, is usually a one-time occurrance. Marital rape occurs between partners that could have known each other for years meaning that the victim could have been raped multiple times. Furthermore, it has been found that the act of marital rape is often part of a cycle of domestic violence experienced by the victim.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Crimes]]

Marital rape

2009-03-06T19:08:56Z

Ieuan: link

'''Marital rape''', also known within [[law]] as '''Spousal rape''', is the [[Rape|rape]] of a [[wife]] or [[husband]] by their own partner.

Whether marital rape is considered a [[crime]] depends on where you live in the [[world]]. Almost all developed [[countries]], and many developing countries, recognise marital rape as being a crime, including, but not limited too: [[Argentina]], [[Australia]], [[Austria]], [[Barbados]], [[Belize]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Canada]], [[Croatia]], [[Cyprus]], [[Denmark]], [[Ecuador]], the [[Fiji]] Islands, [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Georgia]], [[Germany]], [[Honduras]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Ireland]], [[Israel]], [[Macedonia]], [[Mexico]], [[Namibia]], [[Nepal]], The [[Netherlands]], [[New Zealand]], [[Norway]], The [[Philippines]], [[Poland]], [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Sri Lanka]], [[Sweden]], [[Taiwan]], [[Trinidad and Tobago]], the [[United Kingdom]] as a whole, the [[United States of America|United States]], [[Uzbekistan]], and [[Zimbabwe]]<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>. However, the degree that these countries consider the seriousness of the crime of marital rape compared to 'stranger' rape varies from country to country, and indeed [[state]] to state. While some countries and states consider that marital rape is not as serious a crime as other forms of rape, other countries and states hold it to be as serious a crime, or a worse crime, as incidence of marital rape is a strong indicator that other forms of [[Domestic violence|domestic abuse]] are also taking place.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== Marital rape and the law ==

Within [[history]] can be seen the concept that marriage includes within it conjugal rights. In Western culture this was often ascribed to the teaching of [[Saint Paul|St. Paul]]:''"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."''<ref>1 Corinthians v7, ch3-5, New King James Version Bible</ref>. As a result of this passage the concept of marital rape was considered to be an impossibility, and this was codified by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1736 publication of his work ''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown''. Within this work Sir Hale wrote that marital rape could not exist: ''"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."''<ref>''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown'', Matthew Hale, Sir</ref> However, it is important to note that Sir Hale wrote this as a matter of legal opinion, not a finding of legal fact, and so technically this concept did not pass into [[common law]], although [[Judge|judges]] treated this piece of opinion as if it had.

As a result of this, judges within the UK treated marital rape as an exception to the rape law until 1991. In 1991 the [[House of Lords]], the highest national court in the UK, sat in judgement on an appeal lodged in the case of ''R v R'' [1992] 1 AC 599. At the heart of the case rested the question of whether one of the parties involved could have have committed rape on the other party (the spouse) given that the two parties were married to each other. The judges found that what had been perceived as [[case law]] regarding marital rape had been made on the basis of Sir Hale's opinion, and that the opinion in question wasn't [[Precedent|precedence]] (as it wasn't the finding of legal fact within a case), then common law granted no exemption for marital rape within the provisions of the statute governing the crime of rape.

In the US marital rape was exempted from prosecution until 1976. In 1975 [[South Dakota]] removed the exception, and now all 50 states consider marital rape to be a crime, although not all states regard it as being as serious as other forms of rape. States that have no legal distinction between rape and marital rape include, but are not necessarily limited to [[Colorado]], [[Delaware]], [[Florida]], [[Georgia]], [[Indiana]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Montana]], [[Nebraska]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[North Carolina]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oregon]], [[Texas]], [[Utah]], [[Vermont]], [[Wisconsin]] and the [[District of Columbia]].<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>

==Effects of Marital rape==

Where people believe that marital rape is a crime, but not as serious a crime as rape by a stranger, there is often found the perception that because the spouses are well known to each other forced intimacy within a marriage is not as traumatic an event as other forms of rape. However, this perception is incorrect. Rape by a stranger, a highly traumatising event itself, is usually a one-time occurrance. Marital rape occurs between partners that could have known each other for years meaning that the victim could have been raped multiple times. Furthermore, the act of marital rape has been found to often be part of cycle of domestic violence experienced by the victim.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Crimes]]

Marital rape

2009-03-06T19:07:16Z

Ieuan: links

'''Marital rape''', also known within [[law]] as '''Spousal rape''', is the [[Rape|rape]] of a [[wife]] or [[husband]] by their own partner.

Whether marital rape is considered a [[crime]] depends on where you live in the [[world]]. Almost all developed [[countries]], and many developing countries, recognise marital rape as being a crime, including, but not limited too: [[Argentina]], [[Australia]], [[Austria]], [[Barbados]], [[Belize]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Canada]], [[Croatia]], [[Cyprus]], [[Denmark]], [[Ecuador]], the [[Fiji]] Islands, [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Georgia]], [[Germany]], [[Honduras]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Ireland]], [[Israel]], [[Macedonia]], [[Mexico]], [[Namibia]], [[Nepal]], The [[Netherlands]], [[New Zealand]], [[Norway]], The [[Philippines]], [[Poland]], [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Sri Lanka]], [[Sweden]], [[Taiwan]], [[Trinidad and Tobago]], the [[United Kingdom]] as a whole, the [[United States of America|United States]], [[Uzbekistan]], and [[Zimbabwe]]<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>. However, the degree that these countries consider the seriousness of the crime of marital rape compared to 'stranger' rape varies from country to country, and indeed [[state]] to state. While some countries and states consider that marital rape is not as serious a crime as other forms of rape, other countries and states hold it to be as serious a crime, or a worse crime, as incidence of marital rape is a strong indicator that other forms of [[Domestic violence|domestic abuse]] are also taking place.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== Marital rape and the law ==

Within [[history]] can be seen the concept that marriage includes within it conjugal rights. In Western culture this was often ascribed to the teaching of [[Saint Paul|St. Paul]]:''"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."''<ref>1 Corinthians v7, ch3-5, New King James Version Bible</ref>. As a result of this passage the concept of marital rape was considered to be an impossibility, and this was codified by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1736 publication of his work ''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown''. Within this work Sir Hale wrote that marital rape could not exist: ''"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."''<ref>''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown'', Matthew Hale, Sir</ref> However, it is important to note that Sir Hale wrote this as a matter of legal opinion, not a finding of legal fact, and so technically this concept did not pass into [[common law]], although [[judges]] treated this piece of opinion as if it had.

As a result of this, judges within the UK treated marital rape as an exception to the rape law until 1991. In 1991 the [[House of Lords]], the highest national court in the UK, sat in judgement on an appeal lodged in the case of ''R v R'' [1992] 1 AC 599. At the heart of the case rested the question of whether one of the parties involved could have have committed rape on the other party (the spouse) given that the two parties were married to each other. The judges found that what had been perceived as [[case law]] regarding marital rape had been made on the basis of Sir Hale's opinion, and that the opinion in question wasn't [[Precedent|precedence]] (as it wasn't the finding of legal fact within a case), then common law granted no exemption for marital rape within the provisions of the statute governing the crime of rape.

In the US marital rape was exempted from prosecution until 1976. In 1975 [[South Dakota]] removed the exception, and now all 50 states consider marital rape to be a crime, although not all states regard it as being as serious as other forms of rape. States that have no legal distinction between rape and marital rape include, but are not necessarily limited to [[Colorado]], [[Delaware]], [[Florida]], [[Georgia]], [[Indiana]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Montana]], [[Nebraska]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[North Carolina]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oregon]], [[Texas]], [[Utah]], [[Vermont]], [[Wisconsin]] and the [[District of Columbia]].<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>

==Effects of Marital rape==

Where people believe that marital rape is a crime, but not as serious a crime as rape by a stranger, there is often found the perception that because the spouses are well known to each other forced intimacy within a marriage is not as traumatic an event as other forms of rape. However, this perception is incorrect. Rape by a stranger, a highly traumatising event itself, is usually a one-time occurrance. Marital rape occurs between partners that could have known each other for years meaning that the victim could have been raped multiple times. Furthermore, the act of marital rape has been found to often be part of cycle of domestic violence experienced by the victim.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Crimes]]

Marital rape

2009-03-06T18:50:44Z

Ieuan: links

'''Marital rape''', also known within law as '''Spousal rape''', is the rape of a wife or husband by their own partner.

Whether marital rape is considered a crime depends on where you live in the world. Almost all developed countries, and many developing countries, recognise marital rape as being a crime, including, but not limited too: [[Argentina]], [[Australia]], [[Austria]], [[Barbados]], [[Belize]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Canada]], [[Croatia]], [[Cyprus]], [[Denmark]], [[Ecuador]], the [[Fiji]] Islands, [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Georgia]], [[Germany]], [[Honduras]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Ireland]], [[Israel]], [[Macedonia]], [[Mexico]], [[Namibia]], [[Nepal]], The [[Netherlands]], [[New Zealand]], [[Norway]], The [[Philippines]], [[Poland]], [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Sri Lanka]], [[Sweden]], [[Taiwan]], [[Trinidad and Tobago]], the [[United Kingdom]] as a whole, the [[United States of America|United States]], Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>. However, the degree that these countries consider the seriousness of the crime of marital rape compared to 'stranger' rape varies from country to country, and indeed state to state. While some countries and states consider that marital rape is not as serious a crime as other forms of rape, other countries and states hold it to be as serious a crime, or a worse crime, as incidence of marital rape is a strong indicator that other forms of domestic abuse are also taking place.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== Marital rape and the law ==

Within history can be seen the concept that marriage includes within it conjugal rights. In Western culture this was often ascribed to the teaching of St. Paul:''"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."''<ref>1 Corinthians v7, ch3-5, New King James Version Bible</ref>. As a result of this passage the concept of marital rape was considered to be an impossibility, and this was codified by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1736 publication of his work ''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown''. Within this work Sir Hale wrote that marital rape could not exist: ''"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."''<ref>''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown'', Matthew Hale, Sir</ref> However, it is important to note that Sir Hale wrote this as a matter of legal opinion, not a finding of legal fact, and so technically this concept did not pass into common law, although judges treated this piece of opinion as if it had.

As a result of this, judges within the UK treated marital rape as an exception to the rape law until 1991. In 1991 the House of Lords, the highest national court in the UK, sat in judgement on an appeal lodged in the case of ''R v R'' [1992] 1 AC 599. At the heart of the case rested the question of whether one of the parties involved could have have committed rape on the other party (the spouse) given that the two parties were married to each other. The judges found that as all previous precedent regarding marital rape had been made on the basis of Sir Hale's opinion, and that the opinion in question wasn't precedence as it wasn't the finding of legal fact within a case, then common law granted no exemption for marital rape within the provisions of the statute governing the crime of rape.

In the US marital rape was exempted from prosecution until 1976. In 1975 South Dakota removed the exception, and now all 50 states consider marital rape to be a crime, although not all states regard it as being as serious as other forms of rape. States that have no legal distinction between rape and marital rape include, but are not necessarily limited to Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>

==Effects of Marital rape==

Where people believe that marital rape is a crime, but not as serious a crime as rape by a stranger, there is often found the perception that because the spouses are well known to each other forced intimacy within a marriage is not as traumatic an event as other forms of rape. However, this perception is incorrect. Rape by a stranger, a highly traumatising event itself, is usually a one-time occurrance. Marital rape occurs between partners that could have known each other for years meaning that the victim could have been raped multiple times. Furthermore, the act of marital rape is itself likely to be part of s whole sytem of domestic violence experienced by the victim.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Crimes]]

Spousal rape

2009-03-06T18:45:06Z

Ieuan: Redirect page to Marital rape (I hope)

#REDIRECT [[Marital rape]]

Marital rape

2009-03-06T16:03:59Z

Ieuan: New page: '''Marital rape''', also known within law as '''Spousal rape''', is the rape of a wife or husband by their own partner. Whether marital rape is considered a crime depends on where you liv...

'''Marital rape''', also known within law as '''Spousal rape''', is the rape of a wife or husband by their own partner.

Whether marital rape is considered a crime depends on where you live in the world. Almost all developed countries, and many developing countries, recognise marital rape as being a crime, including, but not limited too: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, the Fiji Islands, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Honduras, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Macedonia, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, The Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Taiwan, Trinidad/Tobago, the United Kingdom as a whole, the United States, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>. However, the degree that these countries consider the seriousness of the crime of marital rape compared to 'stranger' rape varies from country to country, and indeed state to state. While some countries and states consider that marital rape is not as serious a crime as other forms of rape, other countries and states hold it to be as serious a crime, or a worse crime, as incidence of marital rape is a strong indicator that other forms of domestic abuse are also taking place.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

== Marital rape and the law ==

Within history can be seen the concept that marriage includes within it conjugal rights. In Western culture this was often ascribed to the teaching of St. Paul:''"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."''<ref>1 Corinthians v7, ch3-5, New King James Version Bible</ref>. As a result of this passage the concept of marital rape was considered to be an impossibility, and this was codified by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1736 publication of his work ''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown''. Within this work Sir Hale wrote that marital rape could not exist: ''"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."''<ref>''Historia Placitorum Coronae, History of the Pleas of the Crown'', Matthew Hale, Sir</ref> However, it is important to note that Sir Hale wrote this as a matter of legal opinion, not a finding of legal fact, and so technically this concept did not pass into common law, although judges treated this piece of opinion as if it had.

As a result of this, judges within the UK treated marital rape as an exception to the rape law until 1991. In 1991 the House of Lords, the highest national court in the UK, sat in judgement on an appeal lodged in the case of ''R v R'' [1992] 1 AC 599. At the heart of the case rested the question of whether one of the parties involved could have have committed rape on the other party (the spouse) given that the two parties were married to each other. The judges found that as all previous precedent regarding marital rape had been made on the basis of Sir Hale's opinion, and that the opinion in question wasn't precedence as it wasn't the finding of legal fact within a case, then common law granted no exemption for marital rape within the provisions of the statute governing the crime of rape.

In the US marital rape was exempted from prosecution until 1976. In 1975 South Dakota removed the exception, and now all 50 states consider marital rape to be a crime, although not all states regard it as being as serious as other forms of rape. States that have no legal distinction between rape and marital rape include, but are not necessarily limited to Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.<ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm</ref>

==Effects of Marital rape==

Where people believe that marital rape is a crime, but not as serious a crime as rape by a stranger, there is often found the perception that because the spouses are well known to each other forced intimacy within a marriage is not as traumatic an event as other forms of rape. However, this perception is incorrect. Rape by a stranger, a highly traumatising event itself, is usually a one-time occurrance. Marital rape occurs between partners that could have known each other for years meaning that the victim could have been raped multiple times. Furthermore, the act of marital rape is itself likely to be part of s whole sytem of domestic violence experienced by the victim.<ref>[http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm Marital Rape</ref>

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

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-03-05T19:33:05Z

Ieuan: /* Comments Section */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
 


== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Perhaps I'm talking through my hat not being a lawyer, but I would disagree with a couple of points there, although not enough to change your overall conclusion.
::::: "''That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.''": No, granting full editing rights does ''not'' grant the user the ''authorisation'' (as opposed to ''ability'') to vandalise.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::Aha, we're back. I've noticed that four questions have been raised. I think that in an edit summary somebody wanted to know whether I have any legal training. Yes, plus years of experience working in many specialties including US federal law (although not State level laws, too many States and not much call for that kind of specialty in the UK).
::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?"''. If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}). I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account. If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed. You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however. The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer. '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract. Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization. Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well). Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''. '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''. I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case. If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too. However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read. The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer). Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object). Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument. And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs. In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.
::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's. On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation. But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed. That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden). There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation. As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court. Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government. Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business). Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made. Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost. Extra bandwidth and storage space? Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Thanks for the response to my points. On the first one, the authorisation issue, I accept your point about there being no law nor legally-binding contract regarding what is and what is not authorised.
::::: On the cost of the vandalism, I'd still argue that you are wrong (but still in the context that the cost would be very minor), as if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and adds four, to use your example, the storage requirement is ''increased'', as the database still stores those 2000 removed words, as well as the four new ones. This is obvious from the mere fact that you can view the history of the article and see those 2000 words in the history. And from the fact that any editor can revert back to those 2000 words, thereby creating yet another record in the database (although whether that new record duplicates those 2000 words or simply points to the older record I don't know). Even deleted pages and deleted ('oversighted') edits are still in the database taking up room unless specifically removed by someone with required rights.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)
::::::Ah, boss thinking there. Didn't think of it in terms of storage costs re retention of deleted material :-)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

I have been interested in following the recent discussion here, and would prefer that it not be archived for a little while. Many of the posters provided food for thought, including PJR. It can only benefit us to better understand our situation, and one way to do that is to dig into the text of the law and discuss it with others, who may see things differently. Listening to others' points of view can help us see our own blind spots, and/or can help strengthen our understanding as to why we are in fact right. ''Both'' of these are good outcomes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Pedophilia

2009-03-05T15:27:43Z

Ieuan: Added alternate spelling of pedophile, plus note that it is the non-US spelling

A '''pedophile''' or '''paedophile''' (non-US spelling) is a person who is sexually attracted to young [[children]]. A pedophile who acts out his or her wishes in the form of viewing child [[pornography]] or molesting youngsters is committing a [[crime]] and breaking virtually all moral codes.

Pedophilia used to be considered a [[mental illness]], but the APA changed its stance in 1994.<ref>[http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/apa.htm Pedophilia No Longer a Disorder, Psychiatric Association Decides]</ref><ref>the American Psychiatric Association has stated is that an adult may engage in sex with a nine-year-old child, and if the adult is not bothered by what he is doing, then he has no reason to seek professional help. [http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/dsm.htm] </ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Sin]][[Category:Crime]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-03-04T17:08:49Z

Ieuan: /* Comments Section */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
 


== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Perhaps I'm talking through my hat not being a lawyer, but I would disagree with a couple of points there, although not enough to change your overall conclusion.
::::: "''That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.''": No, granting full editing rights does ''not'' grant the user the ''authorisation'' (as opposed to ''ability'') to vandalise.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::Aha, we're back. I've noticed that four questions have been raised. I think that in an edit summary somebody wanted to know whether I have any legal training. Yes, plus years of experience working in many specialties including US federal law (although not State level laws, too many States and not much call for that kind of specialty in the UK).
::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?"''. If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}). I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account. If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed. You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however. The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer. '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract. Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization. Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well). Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''. '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''. I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case. If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too. However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read. The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer). Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object). Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument. And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs. In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.
::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's. On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation. But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed. That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden). There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation. As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court. Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government. Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business). Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made. Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost. Extra bandwidth and storage space? Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

I have been interested in following the recent discussion here, and would prefer that it not be archived for a little while. Many of the posters provided food for thought, including PJR. It can only benefit us to better understand our situation, and one way to do that is to dig into the text of the law and discuss it with others, who may see things differently. Listening to others' points of view can help us see our own blind spots, and/or can help strengthen our understanding as to why we are in fact right. ''Both'' of these are good outcomes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-03-02T18:28:04Z

Ieuan: /* Comments Section */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 4]]


Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" ==

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes a fair way towards answering that.
: There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
: This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

::This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Two questions ==

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
: Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
: But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

: We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-03-02T16:27:46Z

Ieuan: /* Comments Section */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 4]]


Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" ==

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes a fair way towards answering that.
: There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
: This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

::This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Two questions ==

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
: Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
: But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

: We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)

User talk:Ieuan

2009-02-20T00:30:49Z

Ieuan:

{|<TABLE BORDER="30" CELLPADDING="10" CELLSPACING="3" BORDERCOLOR="black">;"
|- valign=top
|
{|<center>cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="border:5px black; background-color:navy;"
|
'''I find thee apt;'''

'''And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed'''

'''That rots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,'''

'''Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Hamlet, hear.'''

'''`Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,'''

'''A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark'''

'''Is by a forged process of my death'''

'''Rankly abus'd. But know, thou noble youth,'''

'''The serpent that did sting thy father's life'''

'''Now wears his crown.'''

'''Hamlet'''

You 'gave out' that you explained the references in [[Science fiction]]. But I would not have taken the trouble to ask you for the references, if they were there - and adequately explained. Stop wasting everyone's time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:13, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: The table was deliberate, if you don't know how to reformat it you don't have the experience to waste my time on my talk page. Harsh, but necessary. As for references, they are a start. Yes, I could blitz the section with a thousand-and-one seperate referances, but I believe that to be a lazy way to teach. I give a reference and if that isn't enough then it is up to ''you'' to do the homework and research more. You don't like that, tough, complain to Socrates.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:13, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Copying ==

{{WP no copying}}

==Copying again==

It would appear as if [[The Thrawn Trilogy]] has been copied from [http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Thrawn_Trilogy&oldid=2346088 here]. I am assuming the other Star Wars articles are also copied. We cannot simply copy/paste from sites with a GNU license. Unless you are willing to do a significant rewrite on these pages, they will have to be deleted. I would also strongly advise you to remove the formatting on this talk page, as it makes it impossible to read - I have changed the background from navy to white in the meantime. Thank you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 08:35, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, all the pages were in the middle of a rewrite, all be it slowly given my other committments. If you have a problem with a page maybe you should consider rewriting and contributing to the work rather than deleting it. Oh, and by the way, about a third of the pages had been rewritten to original works, if you could restore all those pages please, I would apporeciate it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:You seem to miss the point. Other editors are not responsible for rewriting pages which have been copied from other wikis by a single renegade editor. I saw how many articles JessicaT was forced to delete; I daresay she had not the time to research and rewrite the 40+ articles which had been plagarised. The only responsible option available is deletion. 'About a third'? It should be 'about 100%'! That still leaves 2/3 pages copied from other wikis, an amount which is totally unacceptable. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 18 February 2009 (EST)
::I have restored them under uder:Ieuan for you to work on. However, they will not be moved to mainspace until we are satisfied they are original articles. In other words, these are only to act as guidelines. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 01:09, 19 February 2009 (EST)

User talk:Ieuan

2009-02-18T19:11:55Z

Ieuan:

User talk:Ieuan

2009-02-18T19:09:46Z

Ieuan: Undo revision 621952 by JessicaT (Talk)

{|<TABLE BORDER="30" CELLPADDING="10" CELLSPACING="3" BORDERCOLOR="black">;"
|- valign=top
|
{|<center>cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="border:5px black; background-color:navy;"
|
'''I find thee apt;'''

'''And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed'''

'''That rots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,'''

'''Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Hamlet, hear.'''

'''`Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,'''

'''A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark'''

'''Is by a forged process of my death'''

'''Rankly abus'd. But know, thou noble youth,'''

'''The serpent that did sting thy father's life'''

'''Now wears his crown.'''

'''Hamlet'''

You 'gave out' that you explained the references in [[Science fiction]]. But I would not have taken the trouble to ask you for the references, if they were there - and adequately explained. Stop wasting everyone's time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:13, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: The table was deliberate, if you don't know how to reformat it you don't have the experience to waste my time on my talk page. Harsh, but necessary. As for references, they are a start. Yes, I could blitz the section with a thousand-and-one seperate referances, but I believe that to be a lazy way to teach. I give a reference and if that isn't enough then it is up to ''you'' to do the homework and research more. You don't like that, tough, complain to Socrates.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:13, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Copying ==

{{WP no copying}}

==Copying again==

It would appear as if [[The Thrawn Trilogy]] has been copied from [http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Thrawn_Trilogy&oldid=2346088 here]. I am assuming the other Star Wars articles are also copied. We cannot simply copy/paste from sites with a GNU license. Unless you are willing to do a significant rewrite on these pages, they will have to be deleted. I would also strongly advise you to remove the formatting on this talk page, as it makes it impossible to read - I have changed the background from navy to white in the meantime. Thank you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 08:35, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, all the pages were in the middle of a rewrite, all be it slowly given my other committments. If you have a problem with a page maybe you should consider rewriting and contributing to the work rather than deleting it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T17:47:26Z

Ieuan: /* Real Bible NOT Koran */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative

2009-01-28T22:43:13Z

Ieuan: /* Conservatives in the United Kingdom */

[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]
A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values. A conservative would likely agree with the statement in [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<ref>In addition, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

== Conservatives in the United States ==

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by adherence to limited government, public morality and free enterprise. Specifically, conservatives tend to adhere to the following principles:

* Return of prayer in school
* Prohibition of abortion
* Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
* Support of laws against pornography
* Support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
* Generally opposed to the United Nations
* Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Support tightening of border security
* Respect for our military... past and present
* Literal interpretation of the [[Bible]] and rejection of [[evolutionism]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
* Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
* A strong national defense

Every so often a conservative has been elected president of the United States. All presidents combine some liberal and some conservative elements, as well as some policies that do not fit into categories. In the last 125 years the most prominent conservatives include:

*[[Grover Cleveland]]
*[[William McKinley]]
*[[William Howard Taft]]
*[[Warren G. Harding]]
*[[Calvin Coolidge]]
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the moddle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[Fox News]], [[NewsMax]], and [[WorldNetDaily]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

However, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterised by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterised it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support amongst the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830 (Second Edition)'', 2008 </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in the [[U.K.]] than in the [[U.S.]]{{fact}}, and religious issues thereby play less of a role in [[England]] and [[Wales]]. Religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, UK Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

In the United Kingdom the broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]

{{Conservatism}}

President of the United States of America

2009-01-28T18:06:02Z

Ieuan: Parity in paragraph

[[Image:Presidential seal 506x508.gif|thumbnail|right|300px|The [[United States]] Presidential Seal]]
The '''President of the United States''' is the head of the [[United States of America|U.S.]] [[Executive Branch]]. As the [[head of state]] of the [[United States of America]] the President is one of the most powerful people in the [[world]]. The writers of the [[United States Constitution|constitution]] recognized that they were writing a job description which, in [[England]], was and is filled by the office of the [[Prime Minister]] and position of the [[Monarchy|Monarch]]. At that time, the Monarchy of England did not seem to serve the common man and the Founders wanted to create a [[government]] that did.
==Current President==
The current President is [[Barack Hussein Obama]]. He took office on January 20, 2009. His predecessor was [[George W. Bush|George Walker Bush]].

==Election==
The President is selected every four years by the American people, although not through a [[popular vote]] but rather through the [[Electoral College]]. This process makes the Presidency one of the few elected officials in the [[United States of America]] chosen indirectly, and it was intended to do so by the [[Founding Fathers]].

==Term Limits==
After [[Franklin Roosevelt]] served a little over twelve years in office, [[Congress]] passed a [[Constitutional Amendment]] restricting future Presidents to two terms.

However if the Vice President succeeds to the Presidency, with no more than two years left in the prior President's term, he is allowed to run for two terms, raising the potential time in office to ten years.

The first President to whom term limits applied was [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]].

==See Also==
[[Vice President of the United States of America]]

==Presidents list==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!President
!Years
!State
!Party
!Vice President(s)
|-
|1. [[George Washington]]
|1789-1797
|[[Virginia]]
|none
|Adams
|-
|2. [[John Adams]]
|1797-1801
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Federalist
|Jefferson
|-
|3. [[Thomas Jefferson]]
|1801-1809
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Burr, Clinton
|-
|4. [[James Madison]]
|1809-1817
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Clinton, Gerry
|-
|5. [[James Monroe]]
|1817-1825
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Tompkins
|-
|6. [[John Q. Adams]]
|1825-1829
|[[Massachusetts]]
|National Republican
|Calhoun
|-
|7. [[Andrew Jackson]]
|1829-1837
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Calhoun, Van Buren
|-
|8. [[Martin van Buren]]
|1837-1841
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|9. [[William H. Harrison]]
|1841
|none
|Whig
|Tyler
|-
|10. [[John Tyler]]
|1841-1845
|[[Virginia]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|11. [[James Knox Polk]]
|1845-1849
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Dallas
|-
|12. [[Zachary Taylor]]
|1849-1850
|none
|Whig
|Filmore
|-
|13. [[Millard Filmore]]
|1850-1853
|[[New York]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|14. [[Franklin Pierce]]
|1853-1857
|[[New Hampshire]]
|Democratic
|King
|-
|15. [[James Buchanan]]
|1857-1861
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Democratic
|Breckenridge
|-
|16. [[Abraham Lincoln]]
|1861-1865
|[[Illinois]]
|Republican
|Hamlin, Grant
|-
|17. [[Andrew Johnson]]
|1865-1869
|[[Tennessee]]
|none
|none
|-
|18. [[Ulysses S. Grant]]
|1869-1877
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Colfax, Wilson
|-
|19. [[Rutherford Hayes]]
|1877-1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Wheeler
|-
|20. [[James Garfield]]
|1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Arthur
|-
|21. [[Chester Arthur]]
|188-1885
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|none
|-
|22. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1885-1889
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Hendricks
|-
|23. [[Benjamin Harrison]]
|1889-1893
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Morton
|-
|24. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1893-1897
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Stevenson
|-
|25. [[William McKinley]]
|1897-1901
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Roosevelt
|-
|26. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|1901-1909
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|Fairbanks
|-
|27. [[William Taft]]
|1909-1913
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Sherman
|-
|28. [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|1913-1921
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic
|Marshall
|-
|29. [[Warren G. Harding]]
|1921-1923
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Coolidge
|-
|30. [[Calvin Coolidge]]
|1923-1929
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Republican
|Dawes
|-
|31. [[Herbert Hoover]]
|1929-1933
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Curtis
|-
|32. [[Franklin Roosevelt]]
|1933-1945
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Garner, [[Henry A. Wallace|Wallace]], Truman
|-
|33. [[Harry S. Truman]]
|1945-1953
|[[Kansas]]
|Democratic
|Barkley
|-
|34. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|1953-1961
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Republican
|Nixon
|-
|35. [[John F. Kennedy]]
|1961-1963
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|36. [[Lyndon Johnson]]
|1963-1969
|[[Texas]]
|Democratic
|Humphrey
|-
|37. [[Richard Nixon]]
|1969-1974
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Agnew, Ford
|-
|38. [[Gerald Ford]]
|1974-1977
|[[Nebraska]]
|Republican
|Rockefeller
|-
|39. [[Jimmy Carter]]
|1977-1981
|[[Georgia]]
|Democratic
|Mondale
|-
|40. [[Ronald Reagan]]
|1981-1989
|[[California]]
|Republican
|(H.W.) Bush
|-
|41. [[George H.W. Bush]]
|1989-1993
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Quayle
|-
|42. [[Bill Clinton]]
|1993-2001
|[[Arkansas]]
|Democratic
|Gore
|-
|43. [[George W. Bush]]
|2001-''2009''
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Cheney
|-
|44. [[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|''2009 - ''
|[[Illinois]]
|Democratic
|Biden
|}

{{USPresidents}}
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States History]]

President of the United States of America

2009-01-28T14:40:26Z

Ieuan: /* Current President */

[[Image:Presidential seal 506x508.gif|thumbnail|right|300px|The [[United States]] Presidential Seal]]
The '''President of the United States''' is the head of the [[United States of America|U.S.]] [[Executive Branch]]. As the [[head of state]] of the [[United States of America]] the President is one of the most powerful people in the [[world]]. The writers of the [[United States Constitution|constitution]] recognized that they were writing a job description which, in [[England]], was and is filled by the office of the [[Prime Minister]] and position of the [[Monarchy|Monarch]]. At that time, the Monarchy of England did not seem to serve the common man and the Founders wanted to create a [[government]] that did.
==Current President==
The current President is [[Barack Obama]]. He took office on January 20, 2009. His predecessor was [[George W. Bush]].

==Election==
The President is selected every four years by the American people, although not through a [[popular vote]] but rather through the [[Electoral College]]. This process makes the Presidency one of the few elected officials in the [[United States of America]] chosen indirectly.

==Term Limits==
After [[Franklin Roosevelt]] served a little over twelve years in office, [[Congress]] passed a [[Constitutional Amendment]] restricting future Presidents to two terms.

However if the Vice President succeeds to the Presidency, with no more than two years left in the prior President's term, he is allowed to run for two terms, raising the potential time in office to ten years.

The first President to whom term limits applied was [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]].

==See Also==
[[Vice President of the United States of America]]

==Presidents list==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!President
!Years
!State
!Party
!Vice President(s)
|-
|1. [[George Washington]]
|1789-1797
|[[Virginia]]
|none
|Adams
|-
|2. [[John Adams]]
|1797-1801
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Federalist
|Jefferson
|-
|3. [[Thomas Jefferson]]
|1801-1809
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Burr, Clinton
|-
|4. [[James Madison]]
|1809-1817
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Clinton, Gerry
|-
|5. [[James Monroe]]
|1817-1825
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Tompkins
|-
|6. [[John Q. Adams]]
|1825-1829
|[[Massachusetts]]
|National Republican
|Calhoun
|-
|7. [[Andrew Jackson]]
|1829-1837
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Calhoun, Van Buren
|-
|8. [[Martin van Buren]]
|1837-1841
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|9. [[William H. Harrison]]
|1841
|none
|Whig
|Tyler
|-
|10. [[John Tyler]]
|1841-1845
|[[Virginia]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|11. [[James Knox Polk]]
|1845-1849
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Dallas
|-
|12. [[Zachary Taylor]]
|1849-1850
|none
|Whig
|Filmore
|-
|13. [[Millard Filmore]]
|1850-1853
|[[New York]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|14. [[Franklin Pierce]]
|1853-1857
|[[New Hampshire]]
|Democratic
|King
|-
|15. [[James Buchanan]]
|1857-1861
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Democratic
|Breckenridge
|-
|16. [[Abraham Lincoln]]
|1861-1865
|[[Illinois]]
|Republican
|Hamlin, Grant
|-
|17. [[Andrew Johnson]]
|1865-1869
|[[Tennessee]]
|none
|none
|-
|18. [[Ulysses S. Grant]]
|1869-1877
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Colfax, Wilson
|-
|19. [[Rutherford Hayes]]
|1877-1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Wheeler
|-
|20. [[James Garfield]]
|1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Arthur
|-
|21. [[Chester Arthur]]
|188-1885
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|none
|-
|22. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1885-1889
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Hendricks
|-
|23. [[Benjamin Harrison]]
|1889-1893
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Morton
|-
|24. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1893-1897
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Stevenson
|-
|25. [[William McKinley]]
|1897-1901
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Roosevelt
|-
|26. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|1901-1909
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|Fairbanks
|-
|27. [[William Taft]]
|1909-1913
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Sherman
|-
|28. [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|1913-1921
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic
|Marshall
|-
|29. [[Warren G. Harding]]
|1921-1923
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Coolidge
|-
|30. [[Calvin Coolidge]]
|1923-1929
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Republican
|Dawes
|-
|31. [[Herbert Hoover]]
|1929-1933
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Curtis
|-
|32. [[Franklin Roosevelt]]
|1933-1945
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Garner, [[Henry A. Wallace|Wallace]], Truman
|-
|33. [[Harry S. Truman]]
|1945-1953
|[[Kansas]]
|Democratic
|Barkley
|-
|34. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|1953-1961
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Republican
|Nixon
|-
|35. [[John F. Kennedy]]
|1961-1963
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|36. [[Lyndon Johnson]]
|1963-1969
|[[Texas]]
|Democratic
|Humphrey
|-
|37. [[Richard Nixon]]
|1969-1974
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Agnew, Ford
|-
|38. [[Gerald Ford]]
|1974-1977
|[[Nebraska]]
|Republican
|Rockefeller
|-
|39. [[Jimmy Carter]]
|1977-1981
|[[Georgia]]
|Democratic
|Mondale
|-
|40. [[Ronald Reagan]]
|1981-1989
|[[California]]
|Republican
|(H.W.) Bush
|-
|41. [[George H.W. Bush]]
|1989-1993
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Quayle
|-
|42. [[Bill Clinton]]
|1993-2001
|[[Arkansas]]
|Democratic
|Gore
|-
|43. [[George W. Bush]]
|2001-''2009''
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Cheney
|-
|44. [[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|''2009 - ''
|[[Illinois]]
|Democratic
|Biden
|}

{{USPresidents}}
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Conservative

2009-01-28T01:28:56Z

Ieuan: According to the source The Sun supports the government in power, not the Conservative party, so not conservative just opportunistic

[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]
A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values. A conservative would likely agree with the statement in [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<ref>In addition, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

== Conservatives in the United States ==

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by adherence to limited government, public morality and free enterprise. Specifically, conservatives tend to adhere to the following principles:

* Return of prayer in school
* Prohibition of abortion
* Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
* Support of laws against pornography
* Support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
* Generally opposed to the United Nations
* Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Support tightening of border security
* Respect for our military... past and present
* Literal interpretation of the [[Bible]] and rejection of [[evolutionism]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
* Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
* A strong national defense

About every 20-60 years a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:

*[[George Washington]]
*[[James Monroe]]
*[[Grover Cleveland]]
*[[Warren G. Harding]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so.

== Conservative News Organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[Fox News]], [[WorldNetDaily]], [[NewsMax]], [[Accuracy In Media]], and [[Cybercast News Service]].

== Conservative Magazines and Blogs ==
Two well known conservative magazines in the United States are The Weekly Standard and the [[National Review]].

Some of the more notable [[Conservative political blogs|conservative political blogs]] are Power Line, Captain's Quarters, the blog of [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, the Heritage Policy Weblog, Humanevents, Townhall, and the Conservative Caucus blog.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

However, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of [[Western Goals]]. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterised by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterised it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support amongst the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830 (Second Edition)'', 2008 </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in the [[U.K.]] than in the [[U.S.]]{{fact}}, and religious issues thereby play less of a role in [[England]]. Religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, UK Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than [[internationalist]] outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

In the United Kingdom the broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]

{{Conservatism}}

Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?

2009-01-16T16:57:16Z

Ieuan: /* The Open Source movement and software is a good thing */

{{debate}}

== Premise ==

How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and the software provided through open sources. Do you believe it to be a bad thing, maybe anti-capitalistic, given that it gives away products that other companies charge for? Or do you believe that it is conservative in value, given that people have taken time to develop a unique product and then freely donate that product to the world as an act of charity? Is there anything specific that has led you to this conclusion?

== The Open Source movement and software is a bad thing ==

== The Open Source movement and software is a good thing ==
Well, hopefully most here would agree with this, given that this site runs on such software. [[User:KevinS|KevinS]] 11:46, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:True, this site runs on such software, but then, given the choice between this version of the software which is free, or say, a very similar piece of software that carries a charge (say $75.00 to purchase), which would be preferred? (given that purchasing the software would help the economy and ensure that there is capital to develop new kinds of software, but then the open source software works perfectly well and costs nothing to obtain and the use of open source software can then inspire others to develop their own open source software)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:57, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2009-01-16T16:43:07Z

Ieuan: /* Philosophical debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Why do people believe the earth is less than 1000 years old given that there are recorded histories predating that?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?|Debate:Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to do the same?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama trails McCain in polling before the Democratic convention, will they choose Hillary instead?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate: Are Cantonese people a non-Chinese ethnic group?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|Debate:If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia as a snapshot of the election to come]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Mapping the future of Conservapedia]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Debate: Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?

2009-01-16T16:42:54Z

Ieuan: Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?

Talk:Athtard

2009-01-16T16:32:11Z

Ieuan: darn, forgot to sign, (again)

== Not the best source to be using ==

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=athtard

Probably not the best site to be referencing, given the rather large number of articles it contains designed to insult Christians, maybe another site could be found?--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:32, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:Agree. Reference has been removed. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 10:31, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Lembit Opik

2009-01-16T15:07:43Z

Ieuan: Capital and wikifying

'''Lembit Opik''' is a [[Liberal Democrats|Liberal Democrat]] Member of Parliament for the mid-Wales district of Montgomeryshire (in the [[United Kingdom]]). Lembit Opik is a prominent back-bench [[male member|member]], famous for his concern for protecting the earth against asteroid collisions. He recently ended a relationshiop with television weather forecaster Sian Lloyd, having taken up with one of the Cheeky Girls (qv).

[[Category:Political Activists]]
[[category:United Kingdom]]
[[category:Members of Parliament]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Opik, Lembit}}

Talk:Athtard

2009-01-16T14:42:27Z

Ieuan: Not the best source to be using

Hermaphrodite

2009-01-15T20:34:59Z

Ieuan: Origin of word

A '''hermaphrodite''' is an animal or plant having both male and female [[reproductive organs]]. Often, one or both sets of organs are non-functional, and hermaphroditism is considered a [[birth defect]], which can be caused by abuses of [[alcohol]] or [[drugs]] during [[pregnancy]]. The abnormality in humans occurs at exceedingly rare interval; the individuals in question are generally not able to reproduce through [[sexual intercourse]].

[[Sigmund Freud]] held that all people were hermaphrodites while in the [[womb]], and that this stage affected human [[psychology]] permanently. This view is contradicted by modern medical understanding of the process, however, where [[ultrasound]]s clearly indicate just one sex of the [[fetus]].

The word 'hermaphrodite' comes from the Greek mythological god Hermaphroditus whose own name was derived from his (in Greek mythology Hermaphroditus was originally born male but was then later cursed into a combined male/female form) parents, [[Hermes]] and [[Aphrodite]].

==Human Hermaphrodites==

[[Christianity]] teaches that all can be saved through Christ. Doctors can often perform operations shortly after birth to correct the child to the intended gender and most hermaphrodites will then lead perfectly normal lives in Christ.

There is no [[Darwin]]ian reason for human hermaphrodites to exist, since hermaphrodism does not provide any reproductive or survival benefits. Human hermaphrodites therefore provide yet another challenge to Darwin's theories, often explained away by evolutionists as an "unfavorable" [[mutation]], yet they are unable to explain its repeated occurrence over the ages.

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Black hole

2009-01-14T03:15:14Z

Ieuan: clumsy fingers, again

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour by not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Black hole

2009-01-14T03:13:59Z

Ieuan: /* Existence confirmed? */

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour but not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-11T18:08:55Z

Ieuan: /* Black Holes */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

== Merging ==

Conservative and I have been working on [[Atheist beliefs]], and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Black Holes ==

Have [[Black Hole]]s been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:If I'm not mistaken—and that ''does'' happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16356-2008-the-year-in-astronomy.html 2008: The year in astronomy].--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::What is "Big Astronomy"'s motive in falsifying data about black holes? Their existence has little, if anything, to do with the theory of the Big Bang and presents no problem for Creationism. [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 13:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Outrageous claims about black holes sell lots of magazines to lots of naive people. And let's not forget that [[liberals]] get a thrill out of [[deceit]] for its own sake alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::: So it's your contention that black holes don't exist? Despite the fact that [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA] have spotted them? Are you saying that NASA is lying? Given that your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=604724&oldid=604696 brother] also believes NASA, are you saying your brother is naive?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::: What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted" them, they '''inferred''' them. These scientists infer many other things which we know to be false. This reduces their credibility.
::::: Do you never disagree with your brother? Has your brother never been wrong? Has your brother never been tricked by men seeking to do evil, or men who were fooled, themselves? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::::::"What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted them, they "inferred " them." Only two problems with that statement: i) The staggering ignorance you have shown about the work carried out in the detection of singularity objects (are you even aware of how such objects are spotted? No, didn't think so); and ii) I assume that when you see a dog you only infer that it is a dog because you haven't carried out a full genetic check of the animal and the wealth of other evidence provided isn't good enough for you (oh, and if you are having trouble equating point ii with the discussion at hand - it's called a metaphor and is used as a teaching aid). As for the point about brothers is it your contention that RSchlafly is too dense, ignorant, dumb and stupid to study the evidence and come to his own conclusions? Are you saying that he blindly follows whatever somebody tells him to do or think? Is that how you have at the beliefs or knowledge you have? Are you saying that RSchlafly's knowledge of physics isn't good enough for him to independently study the evidence, despite the impressive depth of knowledge he has already shown about such matters on this site? Why do you equate the discovery of black holes with 'evil'? Do they threaten your beliefs in some way? If it does then why? No scientific discovery has ever threatened my belief and faith. Papal astronomers are perfectly happy with the fact that black holes exist and have been spotted, are you now claming to know more about science and faith than those who serve the church that is the foundation of your particular religion (assuming you are a christian)? Are you even aware that papal astronomers and the Holy See have stated that the possibility of alien life existing ''" does not clash with christian belief"''?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:08, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]…--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Well they didn't "discover" the big bang theory persay, though they have made many observations to support it. See [http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html here]. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Black hole

2009-01-10T22:06:51Z

Ieuan:

Black hole

2009-01-09T20:47:33Z

Ieuan: They started spotting them decades ago, and no astrophysicist claims they haven't been spotted

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a theoretical mass with an [[escape velocity]] greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly using visible light spectrums, but the nature and properties of a black hole mean that they can be discovered through the detection of specific kinds of radiation, as well as other methods. Several black holes have already been discovered, <ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124b.html</ref><ref>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/01/smallest-black-hole.html</ref> with the largest black hole so far discovered being named Chandra <ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html</ref>. While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, [[Stephen Hawking]] has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole. This theory however is unable to be tested.
The outer surface of a black hole is an [[event horizon]], a non-material dimensional boundary, beyond which nothing can escape.

Black holes are thought to form when supermassive stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of hydrogen fuel and die. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes under its own gravity in a supernova. The outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe. Not all supernovae result in black holes though. If the mass of the core is large enough, [[Chandrasekhar limit|about 1.2 times the mass of the Sun]], the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite gravity: a black hole. This rare event is known as a hypernova and is even more energetic than a supernova.

Schwarzchild discovered that black holes were possible in the [[theory of relativity]]. [[Albert Einstein]] tried to re-work the whole theory to eliminate the need for these [[Singularity|singularities]]. However, [[Roger Penrose]] and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many [[Singularity Theorems]], which states that singularities must form under certain conditions. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic feature of realistic solutions to [[relativity]]. According to relativity, any mass with radius less than its [[Schwarzchild Radius]] is a black hole.

But contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space.

== External links ==

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

== References ==
<References/>

[[category: physics]]

Talk:Black hole

2009-01-09T20:47:17Z

Ieuan: Yeah, right

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-09T20:47:14Z

Ieuan: /* Black Holes */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

== Merging ==

Conservative and I have been working on [[Atheist beliefs]], and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Black Holes ==

Have [[Black Hole]]s been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:If I'm not mistaken—and that ''does'' happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16356-2008-the-year-in-astronomy.html 2008: The year in astronomy].--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::What is "Big Astronomy"'s motive in falsifying data about black holes? Their existence has little, if anything, to do with the theory of the Big Bang and presents no problem for Creationism. [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 13:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Outrageous claims about black holes sell lots of magazines to lots of naive people. And let's not forget that [[liberals]] get a thrill out of [[deceit]] for its own sake alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::: So it's your contention that black holes don't exist? Despite the fact that [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA] have spotted them? Are you saying that NASA is lying? Given that your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=604724&oldid=604696 brother] also believes NASA, are you saying your brother is naive?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)
Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]…--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:Well they didn't "discover" the big bang theory persay, though they have made many observations to support it. See [http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html here]. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-08T17:52:30Z

Ieuan: /* Black Holes */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

== Merging ==

Conservative and I have been working on [[Atheist beliefs]], and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Black Holes ==

Have [[Black Hole]]s been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:If I'm not mistaken—and that ''does'' happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16356-2008-the-year-in-astronomy.html 2008: The year in astronomy].--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]…--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-08T17:00:03Z

Ieuan: /* Black Holes */

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2009-01-08T16:46:57Z

Ieuan: /* Powerful new terms */

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: AlanS, don't rant on these pages. Contribute, or please leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Alternative Procedure ==

This project is quite ambitious, and generally, I'd say it is out of the reach of the high-school pupils you're addressing.
Wouldn't it be more effective to write a commentary to the ''gold standard of Biblical translations'', i.e., KJB, to explain its verses to the contemporary audience? The language of the KJB is so vigorous that any alteration just weakens it.
Of course, I'm coming from a German perspective: It took a genius like Martin Luther to come up with a usable German translation for the Bible. He introduced numerous metaphors and proverbs into the German language which still live on. Granted, there are more modern translation - esp. the ''Einheitsübersetzung'' of the EKD (Protestant churches in Germany) and the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. But though it's more exact historically, it lacks the power of Luther's language.
Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

: Your put-down aside, your approach does not address the problem of how culture changes the meaning of modern terms used by ''all'' translations of the [[Bible]]. An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::"the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students" A closer examination of the greatest work of history (perhaps we could agree on a list of the TOP 100) will show that the statement is just wrong. In fact, the few cases of teenagers who excelled in their fields are so well known as they '''were''' rare. (There is only ''one'' Mozart...)

::I'm sure that your students have a better command of '''American''' history than I do. And they should speak better English than I do. I don't know about their German, Latin, Dutch or French...

:: ''An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.'' A reasonable thing would be to explain the meaning of ''x, y, and z'' to the listeners as used in the translations.

:: The Greek originals were in use for a couple of centuries while Ancient Greek was still a living language. Somehow, no one so the necessity to rewrite the originals...

::[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:41, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::BRichtigen, you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. Your point about x, y, z, is not clear; the retranslation is precisely designed to explain x, y, z in a more accurate way as culture changes language. Ancient Greek, which I have studied (have you?) was not as vulnerable to cultural changes to language as today's society is.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:30, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::I looked into the claim ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers'', and the more I research, the more absurd it becomes.
::::Take for instance mathematics, one of the fields were prodigies are said to be found quite often. Granted, there are accomplishments by young men (Abel, Galois), and Gauss constructed the regular heptadekagon age 18. But these examples are few, and most times, the works of the teenage mathematician will be overshadowed by the works of the matured one - if he is allowed to life long enough.
::::Another area: Music. Mozart is the child prodigy par excellence, and others tried to imitate his success (Beethoven's father lied about the age of his son...). But there are only few works of teenagers worth listening to...
::::Which ''accomplishments in history'' are you thinking about?
::::And my Greek is negligible, I'm afraid... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Addendum: Your class voted on the [[Voted_Most_Influential_Person_in_American_History|most influential person in American history]]. None of the top four made his most important attributions to American history as a teenager... [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=496962 This] paper examines the age at which Nobel-winning economists published their important works, and also the ages at which they began their Nobel-related research. Table 1 lists the age at which they began their Nobel work; the youngest was 21, and the average was 29.3. They also briefly examine other fields: the mean "beginning age" for Nobel-winning physicists was 33.6, for chemists it was 31.6, and for physiology/medicine it was 33.2. Note that these are the ages when they began the work, not when the Nobel prize was awarded, as it often takes a number of years for the true importance of significant work to be recognised. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 11:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Well, fine, but few or none of those examples would rank as the greatest "works" in history. And as to BRichtigen's comment above, the issue of the "most influential person" is obviously very different from the issue of the "greatest works."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:22, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Could you give a few examples of the greatest works in history, preferably done by teenagers? Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Unique and useful project ==

Whatever the claims of your distractors and critics be, I believe it is a great project and quite suitable to the intended audience of the encyclopedia. You are quite right in spotting that the meaning of words change as the language evolves or change. This is especially true for English which has become the universal language and the de facto official language of the internet.I wonder whether any one has done this before. It may also be beneficial to recruit some one with special expertise in this field. --[[User:MRain|MRain]] 12:06, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks for your encouragement. I'm not aware of anyone else doing this (or anyone who has "special expertise" in the devolution of modern English). We welcome contributions to the project ... starting with yourself! I'll be adding new items as I discover them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: I think that this is an interesting project, and a good opportunity to try and get across some of the wordplay in the original language that the KJV and most other translations just lack; things like Gen 15:2 or Num 21:9 to give a couple of simple examples - also there's very often the case when words are conflated - like the "kill" example - it's good you want to distinguish the more murderous הרג from נכה- there are a number of separate roots that get translated inconsistently as "kill" and "slay", but you'll perhaps want also to distinguish הרג from רצח and נכה from שחט? Also the names are often clumsily translated as footnotes, if at all, rather than elegantly worked in - sometimes the transliteration of a name is inferior to its translation (IMHO, naturally). Added to that, the KJV (which is very bad in this respect) is incredibly inaccurate when it comes to plants and animals, and it'd be nice to see a scholarly yet poetic translation that is sensibly consistent. I look forward to seeing the results of this! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for your insights, Denise, and I look forward to your contributions to this project!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sadly I'm rather busy these days (and my Greek is not much good compared to my Hebrew, and my Aramaic is near non-existent), but I'll try and make some helpful suggestions. Do you mind if I add my twopennyworth to the project page, as far as examples of things I'd like to see included or avoided? I'm not necessarily always able to talk with reference to the KJV, and my interests (as you'll have gathered) are linguistic, aesthetic, and exactitude-focused rather than centred around political considerations. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Divine Right==

Sorry if I offended with the Divine Right translation. My intent was to say that only Christ has the ultimate authority to rule, not to suggest that claims of Divine Right by kings and despots had and validity. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 14:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Bearing arms ==

The text reads: "In Biblical times, as today, the bearing of arms to defend ones family and society was the hallmark of civilisation."

First, I corrected the British spelling in compliance with the MoS. Second, this description of the culture of arms is against the evidence, at least as far as the Greeks. In "History of the Peloponnesian War," Thucydides [http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html spoke] of wearing arms as a custom of the barbarians, and waxes poetic about the lack of necessity of bearing arms in Greece:
{{cquote|And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life.}}

Should I correct it?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:The Greeks believed in false Gods. Surely the correctness of Judaeo-Christian beliefs is obvious? Also, your reference to 'improper' spellings is unnecessary. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::You know I agree with you on that first point Bugler, but I don't think their being pagans affects their beliefs towards weapons. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean "improper" in the pejorative: it's just that the Manual of Style says not to use British spellings.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::Alex, I'm not that hung up about the spellings so if you wish to copy-edit go ahead. As for the other thing, how about 'hallmark of Judaeo-Christian civilization'? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Good idea! I'll change it, thanks Bugler. Good to see you again.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:47, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Kill vs Murder ==

One of the differences cites Ex. 20:13 and the clarification is to use "murder" instead of "kill". I agree with this clarification. I use the KJV with explanatory notes from the LDS church and the reference for Ex. 20:13 for the word "kill" says in an alternate translation from the Hebrew it means "murder". --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, I never knew that. By the way, Dean, does the standard LDS Bible use the [[KJV]] plus explanatory footnotes?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, it's a KJV with explanatory footnotes. The title page says it's the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are also footnotes and appendix referring to the "JST" which is the ''Joseph Smith Translation''. These are excerpts from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:43, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Rich ==

The entry is blatantly false. You have to look it up. You cant take someone's word for it. Just because it sounds interesting does not make it true. see [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4145&t=KJV here]. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Your link does not explain the meaning of the Greek term, but only its view of the Biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:05, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::What about [http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4145 this] and [http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=114459&category=REF this] and [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4145&version=kjv this]? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::The problem here is that the statement is being assumed true, even though there is no reason to believe that it is, aside from the claim of one user who has agreed to the removal of the item. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:21, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::: The underlying insight is promising, given the very different nature of the "rich" then compared to now. Improvement rather than [[censorship]] is the better approach here. My research reveals that the Greek term really means "fully supplied,"[http://time2changechurches.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html] as in being pampered or lazy.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Your source is a blog. I gave 4 separate sources that are greek lexicons. Which do you think is more reliable? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::a footnote to the CP commandments says "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others."--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Also, Aschlafly, while I share your concern with CPAdmin1's edits, I have to point out that he's right, it's not censorship to remove information because you think it's incorrect. Censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Even if he's wrong, it's assuming bad faith to call his deletions censorship.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Someone please provide a linguistic source that backs up the claim, or I will remove it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:50, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Having checked in my Liddell & Scott, I think it's safe to remove it pending a scholarly source that supports the variant reading. This is a wiki, we can always put it back if more research turns up such a reference. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 18:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Not so fast, folks. There is a key insight here that I've just learned from, as have others. The term "rich" DOES change in meaning over time, and the Greek term could not possibly mean what is meant today by "rich". Instead, the Greek term means "fully supplied." Perhaps "idle rich" would be a better translation or, in modern terms, the "complacent" or "lazy miser."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::The experts say that it means rich. Do you know better than the experts? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:11, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I still don't quite see how your reading squares with the Joseph of Arimathea citation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 19:18, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Tim, that is such a liberal argument: "the experts say that it means ...." The "experts" also say that [[global warming]] is a crisis and that more government spending is needed. God gave us all the ability to think for ourselves. Let's use it. Denise, I don't know what you're referencing specifically. If you mean a reference that Joseph of Arimathea was "rich" and yet a follower of Jesus, that would not disprove the translation of "idle rich" or "complacent" or "lazy miser." Indeed, Joseph had the time to intervene as needed.
::::::::::::::What? It is a liberal argument to say that people who have spent their life studying a language know that language better than someone who does can not even speak it. That argument sounds good to me. Are you saying that you have a better understanding of biblical greek than the people who have written those lexicons? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 21:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Everyone today is "rich" by the standards of Jesus' time, so presumably the term is more nuanced than that common term.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Since when is consulting people who have dedicated themselves to studying a subject and trusting them over the layman liberal? That is equivalent to me, having no ability in building anything whatsoever, designing and constructing my house myself as opposed to hiring people who make their living doing that because getting their help is liberal. Your definition of liberal is a bit silly Andy, and seems to fall along the lines of "whoever does not wholly agree with what you, Andy Schalfly, believe. If trusting experts makes somebody a liberal, then I'd rather be a liberal than blindly rush into something as major as translating God's Word passed down to mankind without somebody who knows what they are talking about.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:15, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Folks, blindly follow your chosen "experts" somewhere else. This is a wiki devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. Understand? That means opening your mind and actually using it. Parroting what you perceive to be an "expert" view might help you win the favor of some liberals, but our project is at a higher level than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:35, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal. In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything. Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's? Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"? Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge? If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge. A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy. That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on. Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is? If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::All of your "experts" are simply sites citing the exact same source, Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. To suggest that questioning that ''single'' definition is rejecting all authority is absurd. Healthy skepticism is necessary to any intellectual project such as this. Relying on a single authority as definitive is absurd. The biblical concept of "rich" is far different than the present. Denying that is patently ridiculous, and ignores millenia of economic and social change. That is why this project is necessary. Like Luther's 500 years ago, it is an attempt to ground our knowledge in the original ''meaning'' of God's word. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

(moved discussion here below to "Rich" Issue for easier editing and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST))

:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such." Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals. The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one. In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.

:::::::::::::::: Most "experts" say there is [[global warming]]. Most experts say that government should raise taxes. Most experts say that government should increase spending. In fact, you can go down the entire list of liberal viewpoints and find that most "experts" support them. Give up your ability to think for yourself, just a little, and you will probably never get it back.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::: But those are experts in other fields. These are experts IN THE LANGUAGE. This is less being open-minded, and has now been degraded to Ostrich theory. What does the meaning of ONE WORD have to do with what Dr. John Q. Scientist has to say about [[global warming]]? You are basically saying "disregard all science, all research, all facts, make junk up as you go along."[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 23:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] . Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy. The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation. A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: "plousios" means "abundantly supplied," not "rich". "Rich in mercy" is an awkward translation at best. The context must be considered to find the right English word for "abundantly supplied."

: Your comment on "unicorn" was silly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: I'm happy with "abundantly supplied" as a translation in this case, though it seems a little prolix. Perhaps we could work on a more mellifluous alternative - possibly "over-replete" or something of that ilk, maybe even something with a nuance of luxury rather than mere adequacy. As a side question, does the "abundantly supplied" gloss apply to `ashir as well as to plousios, and if so, why? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:13, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::: I think you are right that "abundantly supplied" is prolix. I think the nuance that needs to be added is the laziness when some humans are abundantly supplied with food and entertainment. I'm not familiar with `ashir but look forward to learning more. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:40, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:::: In general, I can recommend Weingreen's excellent work ''[http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Grammar-Classical-Hebrew/dp/0198154224?tag=1672411-20&ie=UTF8 A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew]'' for the novice to Biblical Hebrew grammar. It's not a guide to vocabulary, obviously, and it's not in itself sufficient to give the experience and fluency necessary to attempt a translation project of this magnitude, but it's a good place to start. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::: For vocabulary, [http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060?tag=1672411-20&ie=UTF8 Brown/Driver/Briggs] is the standard reference work, as far as I know. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 11:01, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I think what is needed are more nuanced definitions. The Bible uses the term rich as a blanket reference to those of monetary as well as spiritual wealth, and I think having cotextual definitions for each occurrence would be a generally good idea - such as avaricious (ie desire for riches beyond one's needs) for the cited example and others, and e.g. rich-spirited (or similar) for other occurrences. Plus further definitions as appropriate --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 11:49, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Tetragrammata ==

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Grace==
I think the translation of grace is overly simplistic. To me grace is not merely generosity, but generosity towards those in whom it is undeserved. And is a gift specifically ftom the Lord to mankind, and allows for forgivness of the unrepentant sinner and ultimately is the reason God loves each and every one of His creation irrespective of whether they honour His word.

I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, and it is an honourable cause, it's just that IMO grace has always been a concept requiring more understanding than the word itself conveys, and is a central concept to Christianity itself, and by changing it to 'generosity' may hinder people from seeking its true, deeper meaning.

Grace is one of my favourite concepts to learn about and (attempt to) explain to others as I feel not only the concept, but the word itself, has a beauty to it that shouldn't be tampered with --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 19:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, J00ni, this is a lovely explanation! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:J00ni, your point is well taken, but the fact remains that there are millions who are misled by the term "grace" in many instances of its use. They may like the sound, but they think it is something other than what was intended.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Peace ==

The retranslation of "peace" is based on the Greek word. Why is there a citation to the Old Testament on this point? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

: cf LXX: ''καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς εἰ εἰς '''εἰρήνην''' οὗτοι ἐκπορεύονται συλλάβετε αὐτοὺς ζῶντας καὶ εἰ εἰς πόλεμον ζῶντας συλλάβετε αὐτούς'' - your Greek is likely better than mine, but I don't see the issue with this translation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't dispute at all εἰρήνη has a meaning of tranquility, but it ''also'' has a meaning of absence-of-war - much as ''peace'' does in English. See also [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=ei)rh%2Fnh&lang=greek&group=bilevel these sources] - e.g. “ἢ μέγα φρονει̂ς,” ἔφη, “ἐπὶ ται̂ς ἐψηφισμέναις μὲν πεντήκοντα ναυσίν, οὐδέποτε δὲ πληρωθησομέναις; οὕτω γὰρ ἠρέθικας Φίλιππον καὶ τοιαυ̂τα εἴρηκας, '''ἐξ ὡ̂ν οὐκ εἰρήνη γένοιτ' ἂν ἐκ πολέμου, ἀλλ' ἐξ εἰρήνης πόλεμος ἀκήρυκτος'''.” ([[Aeschines]]) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:46, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, you link to a superb online source! It's amazing what is available now on the internet!

:: The point is that "peace" in English is increasingly taken to mean an absence of war, thanks (or "no thanks") to the influence of the media and politics on culture. Very few people take "peace" to mean "tranquility" any more. But Jesus was not telling the Apostles to oppose Roman wars when He said, "peace be with you." He was speaking about an inner tranquility and lack of fear or anxiety. That's a meaning that needs to be restored against the ravages of the [[devolution of language]], particularly with the rise in anxiety disorders.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 07:16, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't doubt your assertion that at the moment, the primary meaning of the English "peace" is as you say. However, I do question the recency of this semantic position, and also whether this was not the case with eirene. I'd assume that someone listening to Jesus would have understood the Aramaic term he used to have a hefty flavour of non-war about it (in general, if not necessarily in context). In the same way, a reader of the English would understand that "peace" has multiple shades of meaning, and will select as appropriate. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 07:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::: But virtually no one today understands "peace" to mean "anxiety free," and Jesus never spoke about foreign policy in His time. It's a complete mismatch, I think, due to the cultural changes in the meaning of "peace" to most people.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:02, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::: An absence of interpersonal strife is not just foreign policy. Also, I think that virtually ''everyone'' today uses the adjective "peaceful" to mean "without anxieties or distractions"; it's easy to underestimate people in general. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 08:08, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== Relinquish or Release ==

The term "relinquish" has negative connotations: it means giving up something that may not have been properly yours. I don't see how that is an improvement over "release", which has positive connotations of resulting in a greater good.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 07:21, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: yes, good point, but "release" sounds too much like what one does to a captive. I think possibly something more like "hand over" or "give away" is in line with paradidomi - am I reading it too literally? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 07:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:: "Release" does have that political/legal connotation, but I don't see that as causing a problem in the context. "Hand over" has a negative connotation, and requires a recipient who does not exist in this context; "give away" implies an inappropriate abandonment of something typically having little value, and that doesn't fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:00, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Question about implementation==

This is an interesting and worthwhile project - I'm learning a lot from reading about the various interpretations of the terms in question. What I'm wondering, though, is how to best implement the outcome for others to use. My first thought would be to choose a "baseline" version of the Bible as a starting point, like the King James Version, then apply the revised translations that are approved and publish this as a "New Conservative Bible" (since calling it the "Conservapedia Bible" would be immodest, I'd think). This could be done as a searchable electronic copy under a dedicated namespace on the CP site. The text itself would be protected, of course, but the talk pages would allow for background, commentary and suggestions for other improved translations. Does this proposal make sense? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:08, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::I think that this project could be a good project if it was done better. Currently, I think this project is overreaching. I think in order to do proper Bible translating you need to understand Greek/Hebrew and ANE culture at a bare minimum. I also reasonably believe that in order to do a conservative translating of the Bible you need to understand the Bible exegesis method of Historico-grammatical exegesis which is given here: http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm So far, I don't see see aforementioned being done in any great depth. That is why I don't think the "New Conservative Bible" will catch on. I think Protestant Christian conservatives will stick with their KJV, NKJV, and NASB Bibles for some time to come. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 28 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, is it 'overreaching' to have a vision? I don't think so. And can man achieve great aims without vision? No. Throughout history, those who have achieved mighty things have been accused of 'overreaching themselves' at the outset. We should have confidence and Hope, and lend support. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: The efficiency of the learning from this project is far greater than in any other medium, much higher than reading a book, attending a seminar, watching television, discussing with people, etc. In merely a few spare minutes or hours, the participants in this project have learned more than they could have after spending 10x or 100x many hours in any other medium. For that reason alone, I feel this project has been more than worthwhile. As Bugler says, let's see where it goes from here. What's there to lose? Nothing, but there is everything to gain in greater [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:05, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Exactly. Learning about just ''one'' of these misconceptions/mistranslations allows you to better understand tens, hundreds, or even ''thousands'' of biblical passages and principles which use the words under examination. "Logos" is a good example, since it's the basis of all creation in John 1:1. "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Better understanding that one word educates a reader enormously about God, his word, and his creation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:20, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: I agree completely. Just one of the insights in the table in this entry can be worth hundreds of hours of personal effort in value. A stronger understanding of these concepts is priceless. Yet it is freely available here for merely the click of the mouse. Can you imagine the value when this table is two or three times as long?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Bugler, you are setting up a false dilemma. If you were more aware of exegesis you would know that. One of the principles of sound exegesis is to set the limits of the passage as can be seen by the link I offered before. With that in mind, I certainly did not say I was against having a vision. At the same time, often without adequate preparation the visions people have often fail. I doubt the Normandy invasion would have been successful if the generals merely had a vision apart from adequate preparation. The Normandy invasion was successful though because the generals had a vision which also had sufficient preparation. Now if you think you can retranslate the Bible without being knowledgeable in Greek/Hebrew, Ancient Near East culture, and exegetical principles then go right ahead, but I reasonably think your quest is rather quoxitic as can be seen by your rather poor exegesis of my previous post. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: I'd suggest that first we establish what sort of a translation we want; then we start with a smallish book with fairly simple language, and move to another book when that's completed and polished. I'd suggest Esther as a nice place to start - it's got a good consistent narrative, the Hebrew is not overcomplicated or overpoetic, and we don't want to get any "teething problems" in something like one of the Gospels. An interlinear approach might be best; and I'd really suggest we do our best to work ''in vacuo'' without too much reference to established translations. Do people prefer working with the Masoretic vowels, notes, and breaks, or just from the plain text, allowing for wider interpretation as to the vocalization? How do we arrrange dealing with disputes and variation in text? One talk-page per chapter? I'd like to be able to suggest that we take an LXX approach and work individually and have the translations miraculously agree, but the evidence above suggests this might not be the best plan ;) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: This is not to say that there won't be opportunities to discuss the translation issues - right from the start there's some interesting questions. As a test run, how do people here render ''ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוא אחשורוש המלך מהדו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה''? The word ויהי is not easy to make smooth in English, there are at least two or three standard renditions for אחשורוש, and the country (or province, or state) names are always something of a point of contention. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:25, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: (and, with all respect, I think we should leave Daniel and Ezra/Nehemia until we know we have someone who's properly competent in Aramaic). [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:42, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::Denise raises an interesting question. While the table-format in the article is educational, is the purpose of this project to begin an all-new translation of the Bible "from scratch", i.e. from the original ancient texts, or is it to start with a pre-compiled baseline like the King James Version and look to bring clarity to selected phrases by reinterpreting them? Conservapedia's own article on the Bible points out differences in the layout and naming of the Old Testament books between the Jewish and Christian collections, so is the scope of this project to look at that as well? I'm totally out of my league here, but asking so that the people who are contributing have a consistent plan to follow. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::: Personally, I have no objection to either - but if we're going to have a retranslation as Aschlafly originally proposed I think it's intellectually sterile to re-translate a translation, taking all but one or two assumptions of the translators for granted. If we wanted to do that, I think that he would have suggested a commentary or gloss. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:55, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== "Rich" Issue ==

(Undent) Well I have 2 more (different) in hard copy. ''The Complete Word Study New Testament'' Spiros Zodhiates, which says it means "rich" And the ''Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament'' Rienecker and Rogers. which says it means "rich" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:That doesn't change the obvious fact that "wealth" in Jesus' time is worlds away from "wealth" in the present, and thus its implications and connotations when used in God's word. What confuses me is your motive in attempting to censor this obvious information. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:17, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, the specific things that we have are completely different, but that doesn't mean that "wealth" was any different. It just means that a person has "an abundance" of material possessions. It doesn't matter whether those possessions are sheep and goats, or if they are gold and silver, or cars and televisions, or lots of digits that represent money in a bank. The point is that the person has many more possessions than they need. The concept is not bounded by time. Solomon had great wealth. Possibly greater than anyone since. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Anyone care to respond?--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 11:41, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Anyone? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:31, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sorry, Tim, I didn't notice your edits in the middle here. The Greek word does not mean "many more possessions than they need" as you suggest. Rather, it means "fully supplied" or "abundantly supplied." The term refers equally well to the person who has just what he needs and no more. In short, it applies to virtually everyone in developed nations, fully fed and entertained. That's why the term "rich" no longer works because very few of the "abundantly supplied" view themselves as "rich" today, yet Jesus is addressing them. The key to the Greek term and the translation is to capture the vice of an unwillingness to try harder due to the complacently of being fully fed and entertained.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::The word also means rich, the 2 definitions are very close in meaning. Abundantly supplied means more than enough. I agree that many or most of the "abundantly supplied" would not consider themselves rich, but I don't think that they'd consider themselves abundantly supplied either. You say that the greek term is about unwillingness to "try harder," and complacency. That is not true. The word means rich, and abundantly supplied. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 09:57, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::: There are many people who are "abundantly supplied" who do not consider themselves "rich". So I disagree that the "2 definitions are very close in meaning" in today's culture. Today nearly all Americans and Europeans are "abundantly supplied" in food, entertainment and other comforts. But very few of them consider themselves "rich". And that's what matters in translating the Bible in a meaningful way. If they have the same misconception about being "abundantly supplied," then that's a good reason to reject that translation also.

::::: When this passage is compared with the Parable of the Talents, see [[Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents]], the real meaning of the term translated as "rich" sharpens into focus: it is the person who has what he needs, but buries it in the ground and does not produce more. "Idle miser" fits both insights well.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: If someone says A, meaning to imply B (what Aschlafly calls the "real meaning" - because A is an exaggeration, an ironic contradiction, hyperbole, metaphor, metonymy, or parable), I think that it's better to translate it as A rather than B - then someone reading the translation will have as close a thought-process as possible to someone reading the original and be able to appreciate the devices used. We're not trying to produce a commentary (beyond that which is inevitable). I think that Aschlafly may have in mind more of a commentary - a guide to interpretation and background - rather than a translation; and there's nothing wrong with that. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 05:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: I'm unsure what you mean by your comment, Denise. "A" is "fully supplied" rather than "rich", which is a relative term today. The issue is expressing "fully supplied" in a way that avoids awkward and misleading connotations of that phrase, which to most people today would falsely make them think of a retail store.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Ah, yes, sorry - I should have been more explicit. A is whatever term meaning ''"having enough" or "having a lot" or "rich" or "not poor" (the choice of which is a linguistic issue)''. B is the implication of laziness, stinginess, or whatever personal qualities, which while they may be conjectured from context and from theological exgesis, are not inherent in the word itself. B is a very interesting thing to have in a commentary, especially if one has useful proof-texts for it from elsewhere that support the point being made. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 08:41, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Denise, you make an excellent point, and thanks for your insight. I continue to learn from your comments and contributions.

::::::::: I guess I need to determine if the Greek term was ever used anywhere to describe an "idle miser" before recommending that as a translation. Maybe I could search for the general usage of the word somehow and see if "idle miser" (or an equivalent) shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: If you're happy to have ancient greek in with your koine (which is probably OK), the Perseus project is a good place to look. Also searching the Septuagint is a good source of ideas. I get annoyed when people ''unthinkingly'' conflate translation and intepretation - the two are linked and every translator is ''ipso facto'' his own exegete, but it must be done consciously - there are many levels of what ''means'' means, and they must be artistically layered to create a well-reading product. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:10, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ ==

I've seen in a few places that this is the general name used for the various forms of Xerxes that ruled Persia. This source cites the one in the Book of Esther as Xerxes I [http://www.answers.com/topic/ahasuerus-1], but I think I've seen him cited as Artaxerses II. He's probably one of the Xerxes or Artaxerxes in the 4th or 5th century, BC (300's-400's). [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Oh, interesting - thanks! I'm surprised that Artaxerxes and Xerxes should have similar versions in Hebrew, though - I wish there were more extrabiblical Hebrew historical/political texts. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 12:20, 29 December 2008 (EST)

==Great article==
Just read it all the way through. It's superb. Thank you Mr. Schlafly! --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:And to Denise and whoever helped put it together. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== Want to help ==
Hi I'm a long time reader and first time poster. I'm very much interested in your bible revisionism project and would like to know how I could contribute?--[[User:JesseC|JesseC]] 18:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: You're not off to a promising start. This is not a Bible (note capital "B") "revisionism" project at all. Try Wikipedia, perhaps, if you want to revise the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Revising it into modern English. Poor choice of words. Still how can I help good sir?--[[User:JesseC|JesseC]] 19:14, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: Just add to a substantive entry, such as this one! You might also find [[Disputed Biblical Translations]] to be of great interest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Powerful new terms==
What an excellent idea! Language changes and develops, and as you point out, crystallising ideas have given rise to many expressions which the Bible expresses, but (in current translations) in an ambiguous, circumlocutory manner. I shall be racking my brains for some more. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)

: Thanks. This is tremendous potential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:33, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::Two I'm struggling with a proper term for, which you might think worthwhile, are socialism and gun control. The term socialism might seem anachronistic in a Biblical context, but the meaning - anti-freedom, anti-enterprise, enslaving of human values - will surely be relevant as an example of everything Christ was fighting against. On the other hand, if the term Socialism sums it up best, why not use ity? As for socialistic gun control, might 'weapon control' cut it? I'd value your opinion. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Good ideas, but I think we need first to find (or imagine) a biblical passage where a specific issue came up, and thus a proper term could be used. Offhand, I can't think of one yet for "weapon control," but "socialism" is more germane to the Bible and should be added to the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::::Andy, it looks like "censor" is from 1526, according to Merriam-Webster online. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor here]. Not detrimental to the point, just a minor correction! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::::In additon, the word [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/412 censor (or censur)] appears in Latin as well, although I can't find an origin date for this, although the Romans did use the word Censor as a title for [http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/C0195700.html Roman officials] with a particular duty (such as the census)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?

2008-12-25T23:55:20Z

Ieuan: Immaterial

{{debate-politics}}

==Yes==

Although I also posted below, in general I feel that one standard should be applied, especially in articles an a "trustworthy encyclopedia". Emphasizing [[human rights]] abuses in countries friendly to American values while downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses which are hundreds of times greater, only serves the enemy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: MLK: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'. Any human rights abuse is wrong and should be criticised. That's a standard that we should consistently hold to. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:::::I've noticed no dearth of references here to the atrocities committed by Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao. Rest assured, Ed, if I saw an article here about Stalin that was as eager to soft-pedal his crimes as the article here about Pinochet, I would feel compelled to add a few unpleasant details. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

They're called Human rights for a reason!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

==No==

America should be held to a higher standard, because of the special claim of the [[American Dream]]. This is easy to do, because America is hundreds of times better than the barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Quite a few of those "barbaric [[totalitarian]] regimes" of the 20th century, like [[Rios Montt]]'s Guatemala and [[Pinochet]]'s Chile and the [[Shah]]'s Iran and even, for some years, [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq, were supported and in some places even installed and propped up by the United States. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why Do You Hate America?(tm) --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 13:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I think we should first define what are human rights first.

Like homosexual marriage and abortion, I don't think they should be included, but others think otherwise.

By the way, human rights come from God, that why often time those atheistic and close nations don't have much of it.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 17:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Immaterial ==

There's no such thing as a human "right". Freedom, liberty, all the things that are considered "rights", they're privileges that were obtained through bitter fighting, and maintained through constant vigilence. That which you consider to be a "right" is a privilege, that's why a lot of people in the world don't have the same freedoms you do. It's also worth remembering that they are privileges that you have to guard, because if you start to think that they are inviolate you will be surprised at how quickly they can be stripped away from you. Just ask anyone who has lived in a democracy that suddenly became a dictatorship.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 18:55, 25 December 2008 (EST)