Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2009-02-06T00:54:42Z

JArneal: /* From Sean Hannity's interview with Rush Limbaugh, 22 January, 2009:[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html] */

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

<s>I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)</s>
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Who's phony?==

Based on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html this] and other news stories, I'd say that Limbaugh was using the term ''phony'' ambiguously. But there are no grounds to suggest that he mean "all soldiers who oppose US military policy in Iraq".

He apparently had two other meanings in mind, although (unlike yours truly) he's not an expert on clarifying word meanings:
#a phony is a [[ringer]], someone who pretends to be representative of a typical person but has been specially selected, with the hope of swaying public opinion; or,
#a phony is someone who says something he knows to be false (also with the intent of swaying public opinion)

Reid correctly pointed out that Limbaugh used the same term for more than one soldier. But his error lies in concluding that Limbaugh had the entire "anti-war" population of soldiers in mind.

It doesn't make sense for Reid to condemn a remark (especially when it's only two words long, in an unscripted conversation). Now condemning an opinion which a speaker confirms and stands by is another thing. But Limbaugh has repudiated the meaning Reid attributed to him, so what's to condemn?

Only a chimera, an false image constructed for the single purpose of discrediting a man. And it's pretty clear that Reid is not after truth but about making Limbaugh shut up.

Democrats and Republicans should debate the issues; neither side should engage in [[ad hominem]] arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:42, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Cochlear Implant ==

I'm not overly familiar with Mr Limbaugh, but he is a notable [[cochlear implant]] recipient[http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432]. Is this worthy of mention? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 07:22, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed, I think it most certainly is. If you want, prepare a paragraph, and I can either open it for you to add, or paste it from here, crediting you. Whatever works best for you Ferret. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::Given time zone issues, probably easiest if I leave something here for you to post. Many thanks TK.

Limbaugh is a sufferer of Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease, a condition which leads to a profound hearing loss. In 2002 he became one of the highest profile people to receive a [[cochlear implant]] [http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432], a device which can provide some deaf people with the ability to hear artificially.

== Rush Limbaugh on Paul Hackett ==

Paul Hackett is an Iraq War veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a civil affairs officer assigned to Ramadi. After he returned home, he ran as a Democrat in a special election for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat in August 2005, narrowly losing to Republican Jean Schmidt. On the day of the election, Mr. Limbaugh accused him of "hiding behind a military uniform" while "lying and denying his liberalism." Mr. Limbaugh claimed later in the show that Mr. Hackett went "to Iraq to pad the resume." -- [[Frey]] December 12, 2007 (Forgive me if this is inappropriate for the talk page, but it's relevant to Rush Limbaugh's attitude on certain things, and the article itself is currently locked from any additions.)

:I am thinking this might be more appropriate under an article on Paul Hackett. Rush Limbaugh, as a talk show host, talks on many people each day. I don't see this particular incident as standing out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Phony soldier incident ==

Phony soldier incident
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.[4]
Here the caller is using the word real in the typical media way, distinguishing interviewees picked at random (as in a legitimate survey) from those specially selected to give predetermined views. The context is the liberal media's desire to portray the average US soldier as opposing administration policy or otherwise bad-mouthing the military.

There was not even a hint that the soldiers called "phony" were in any way not doing their jobs competent. The meaning of phony in this context was obviously "picked to give a predetermined" view.

A parallel can be found in the distinction between models and "real people" often made by photographers. Another example is employees to demonstrate a product vs. casual users or customers (real people).

In the street hustle of three-card monte, shills will place bets and give and receive money from the dealer, but it is all a sham. The shills are not "real people" (actual gamblers) but ringers.

Why is this here? This is the most irrelevant piece of information that I have ever seen on a biography on any website. Limbaugh has done many amazing things in his career and this piece of imformation is placed on his short biography. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

:It's here because a senior officer of the [[United States Senate]] dared threaten a media executive with some unspecified business harm in connection with that call to Rush's radio program. It is not here because we believe for one second any part of that Senator's fevered claims.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 02:56, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:Limbaugh used "phony soldiers" to identify those individuals who claim to have fought in Iraq, got wounded in Iraq, and were discharged from the Army when in fact they were never in the Army at all. This grew out of an individual who was washed out of boot camp at Fort Bragg during his fourth week; this same man did a video that was posted on YouTube dressed in his Army battle dress uniform, but wearing the insignia of an officer. As a veteran myself, I'm not going to put up with phony soldiers, neither am I going to put up with those who'll believe their idiotic rants and dare to broadcast them here as if they were gospel truth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::This is the link to Rush Limbaugh's site, which he goes into detail about his use of "phony soldiers" [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html]; it also includes references to other sites, as well as the original phony soldier himself admitting he's a liar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== 1/2 News Hour ==

Should read "was involved" as the show lasted about six episodes before being canceled. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Please add a link ==

Please add a link to his brother's article [[David Limbaugh]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock Please ==

I'd like to add some information to the article. Could a sysop please unlock? Thanks. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:Normally unlocking is only done by the Sysop who first protected the article, but since he is no longer active I can do that for you. Please be considerate of what additions or updates are appropriate and add those as you see fit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Obama will Fail ==

Can I inquire as to why no one has talked about how Rush recently stated that he wanted President Obama to fail? {{unsigned|Hwuya}}-- 19:18, 2 February 2009

: I don't know why. I think it was very unpatriotic of Rush Limbaugh to say that. I really didn't have an opinion of Rush before that, but now I resent him. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::Can you show us exactly what Rush said? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here's his [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html statement from his own web site]. "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.'" [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 18:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::And for what reason does Limbaugh want Obama to fail in? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Well, I'm sure you can read it yourself - the link's right there for you. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 18:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::::That isn't good enough. I want YOU to read it and SAY it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:01, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Sorry?!!!! I'm only here to provide the information, not to take drive-by insults. And I'm not doing ''anything'' you tell me to - this isn't even my thread. Please read the information yourself and form your own opinion. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 19:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Excuse me, but when you say that you're only here "to provide the information" does not give you the authority to distort it, which is what is implied in the above remarks. A question has been put to you because I am not going to tolerate this distortion of what Limbaugh said, and this liberal/MSM distortion is not going to be pushed here. Now, please answer the question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::EXCUSE ME???!!!!! Who on Earth are you? Please READ the above thread. Note that I DIDN'T START IT. Next, note that ''YOU'' asked to be shown exactly what Rush said. Next, I dropped into the thread and provided ''YOU'' with the information ''YOU'' REQUESTED. I note that you never once said "thanks for the link, FNNoonan". Note that I provided NOT ONE opinion on what Rush said, merely quoting the relevant passage in this discussion. Now - where the H*LL do you get off accusing me of distorting information? Who's liberal/MSM distortion? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Finally, no, I'm not going to answer your question. perhaps JArneal will, since your beef would appear to be with him? Right little Hitler, aren't you? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 19:36, 4 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::And you just exposed yourself as another liberal fascist who takes the exact same line used by the MSM and pushes it here...and refuses to read the rest of what was said, namely that Rush fully intends Obama to fail in his socialism and his liberalism and the pushing of both on Americans, and NOT to fail over-all as president. Something you were afraid to admit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::WOW. Just WOW. You're quite a piece of work. I didn't even read the article, and was simply providing the link for you. Please point out to me where anything I submitted above contained any ''opinion'' on Rush's words? And "liberal fascist"? Where does that come from? And what was I "afraid to admit"? I really can't believe this unbelievably aggressive attack. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 20:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Yes, I am quite a piece of work aren't I? You admitted to not reading the article, just pulled up a single line and used it like the MSM in a brief statement...exactly as I've said. And the term "liberal fascist" comes from way back in the 1930's by sci-fi author [[H.G. Wells]], an admitted far-left socialist who admired Benito Mussolini's facsism and wanted the leftists in this country to adopt it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*You can't FNNoonan? Really? I am not as accommodating with liberal, argumentative trolls as Karajou. Before you (or anyone else) continues to waste our time here with silly, extended, non-issues taken from out-of-context quotes, agree with them, and then continue to argue, understand I will be wishing you God's speed if you do. If you are so delicate, that the comments "offend" you, perhaps the entire Internet isn't the place for you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== '''From Sean Hannity's interview with Rush Limbaugh, 22 January, 2009:'''[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html] ==

''HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.

So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?''

LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.

''HANNITY: I'm glad to.''

LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.

Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.

''HANNITY: Yes.''

'''LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?'''

'''Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.'''

'''"If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great."'''

<big>'''''"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"'''''
</big>

*So, Karajou, you are absolutely correct. Liberal trolls make a out-of-context headline statement, and the knee-jerker's respond with their usual hate and [[deceit]]. What is acceptable for liberals is not allowed for conservatives, ''in their book''. As Rush said:

{{cquote|'''Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? ''Why do we have to play the game by their rules?'' Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."'''}}

'''Context is everything.''' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:But what did FNNoonan do wrong?? --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 01:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)

::And aside from you both being Aussies, your business in this is? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:12, 5 February 2009 (EST)

:::I couldn't keep away. After being so insulted, I couldn't resist popping back to see what, if any, were the repercussions. I see there are few. But I'd just like to point out I'm not Australian, and I'm curious as to why you thought so? No matter. I'd also like to point out that as a 17 year listener and fan of Rush, I'm pretty damn disappointed with the way this dialog went. Best to you all. [[User:FrankNN|FrankNN]] 14:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::::You previously admitted that you never read the link you yourself provided, just pulled a line out of context. It could have been solved had you read what was in the link and pulled out the whole paragraph involved, but you chose a different route. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, I actually understand Rush's statement now. I'm now not as appalled as I once was. But here's the problem with the logic: Barack Obama and liberalism are not the same thing. If Barack Obama fails, the United States will suffer, especially with the scale at which Obama wants to do things. I don't know why anyone would wish suffering on their country. That's my two cents. Either way, Obama seems to be failing so far with his cabinet appointments. That couldn't have been executed more poorly. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 19:54, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2009-02-04T23:25:15Z

JArneal: /* Obama will Fail */

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

<s>I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)</s>
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Who's phony?==

Based on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html this] and other news stories, I'd say that Limbaugh was using the term ''phony'' ambiguously. But there are no grounds to suggest that he mean "all soldiers who oppose US military policy in Iraq".

He apparently had two other meanings in mind, although (unlike yours truly) he's not an expert on clarifying word meanings:
#a phony is a [[ringer]], someone who pretends to be representative of a typical person but has been specially selected, with the hope of swaying public opinion; or,
#a phony is someone who says something he knows to be false (also with the intent of swaying public opinion)

Reid correctly pointed out that Limbaugh used the same term for more than one soldier. But his error lies in concluding that Limbaugh had the entire "anti-war" population of soldiers in mind.

It doesn't make sense for Reid to condemn a remark (especially when it's only two words long, in an unscripted conversation). Now condemning an opinion which a speaker confirms and stands by is another thing. But Limbaugh has repudiated the meaning Reid attributed to him, so what's to condemn?

Only a chimera, an false image constructed for the single purpose of discrediting a man. And it's pretty clear that Reid is not after truth but about making Limbaugh shut up.

Democrats and Republicans should debate the issues; neither side should engage in [[ad hominem]] arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:42, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Cochlear Implant ==

I'm not overly familiar with Mr Limbaugh, but he is a notable [[cochlear implant]] recipient[http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432]. Is this worthy of mention? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 07:22, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed, I think it most certainly is. If you want, prepare a paragraph, and I can either open it for you to add, or paste it from here, crediting you. Whatever works best for you Ferret. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::Given time zone issues, probably easiest if I leave something here for you to post. Many thanks TK.

Limbaugh is a sufferer of Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease, a condition which leads to a profound hearing loss. In 2002 he became one of the highest profile people to receive a [[cochlear implant]] [http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432], a device which can provide some deaf people with the ability to hear artificially.

== Rush Limbaugh on Paul Hackett ==

Paul Hackett is an Iraq War veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a civil affairs officer assigned to Ramadi. After he returned home, he ran as a Democrat in a special election for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat in August 2005, narrowly losing to Republican Jean Schmidt. On the day of the election, Mr. Limbaugh accused him of "hiding behind a military uniform" while "lying and denying his liberalism." Mr. Limbaugh claimed later in the show that Mr. Hackett went "to Iraq to pad the resume." -- [[Frey]] December 12, 2007 (Forgive me if this is inappropriate for the talk page, but it's relevant to Rush Limbaugh's attitude on certain things, and the article itself is currently locked from any additions.)

:I am thinking this might be more appropriate under an article on Paul Hackett. Rush Limbaugh, as a talk show host, talks on many people each day. I don't see this particular incident as standing out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Phony soldier incident ==

Phony soldier incident
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.[4]
Here the caller is using the word real in the typical media way, distinguishing interviewees picked at random (as in a legitimate survey) from those specially selected to give predetermined views. The context is the liberal media's desire to portray the average US soldier as opposing administration policy or otherwise bad-mouthing the military.

There was not even a hint that the soldiers called "phony" were in any way not doing their jobs competent. The meaning of phony in this context was obviously "picked to give a predetermined" view.

A parallel can be found in the distinction between models and "real people" often made by photographers. Another example is employees to demonstrate a product vs. casual users or customers (real people).

In the street hustle of three-card monte, shills will place bets and give and receive money from the dealer, but it is all a sham. The shills are not "real people" (actual gamblers) but ringers.

Why is this here? This is the most irrelevant piece of information that I have ever seen on a biography on any website. Limbaugh has done many amazing things in his career and this piece of imformation is placed on his short biography. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

:It's here because a senior officer of the [[United States Senate]] dared threaten a media executive with some unspecified business harm in connection with that call to Rush's radio program. It is not here because we believe for one second any part of that Senator's fevered claims.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 02:56, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:Limbaugh used "phony soldiers" to identify those individuals who claim to have fought in Iraq, got wounded in Iraq, and were discharged from the Army when in fact they were never in the Army at all. This grew out of an individual who was washed out of boot camp at Fort Bragg during his fourth week; this same man did a video that was posted on YouTube dressed in his Army battle dress uniform, but wearing the insignia of an officer. As a veteran myself, I'm not going to put up with phony soldiers, neither am I going to put up with those who'll believe their idiotic rants and dare to broadcast them here as if they were gospel truth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::This is the link to Rush Limbaugh's site, which he goes into detail about his use of "phony soldiers" [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html]; it also includes references to other sites, as well as the original phony soldier himself admitting he's a liar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== 1/2 News Hour ==

Should read "was involved" as the show lasted about six episodes before being canceled. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Please add a link ==

Please add a link to his brother's article [[David Limbaugh]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock Please ==

I'd like to add some information to the article. Could a sysop please unlock? Thanks. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:Normally unlocking is only done by the Sysop who first protected the article, but since he is no longer active I can do that for you. Please be considerate of what additions or updates are appropriate and add those as you see fit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Obama will Fail ==

Can I inquire as to why no one has talked about how Rush recently stated that he wanted President Obama to fail?

: I don't know why. I think it was very unpatriotic of Rush Limbaugh to say that. I really didn't have an opinion of Rush before that, but now I resent him. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Spectrum

2009-02-04T04:01:00Z

JArneal:

The Electromagnetic '''Spectrum''' is the entire range of electromagnetic radiation extending in frequency from zero Hertz to 1023 cycles per second (or Hertz).<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/help/glossfig1.htm</ref>

Longer wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation such as used in AM radio have lower frequencies (540 to 1600 KHz). FM radio has much shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies (88 to 108 MHz).

Even higher frequencies give as microwave radiation, used in radar and cooking. Still higher is infrared (which can keep food warm from a lamp or heat up your skin from sunlight or fire). Infrared is used in "black light" photography.

Next highest in frequency (and lower in wavelengths) is [[visible light]]: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.

Ultraviolet light can give you a suntan (or burn), and too much of certain UV frequencies can increase one's risk of skin cancer. Some frequencies are blocked by the Earth's [[ozone layer]].

Even higher frequencies include X-rays and gamma rays. Both are known to be hazardous because of their ability to pass through, and cause damage to, flesh and organs.<ref>http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/gamma.html</ref>

More colloquially, the spectrum is simply the range of electromagnetic [[radio]] frequencies used in the transmission of sound, [[data]] and [[television]]. [[Category:Telecommunications]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-02-04T03:24:28Z

JArneal: /* Rearranged content */

{{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)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (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)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== 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)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 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)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 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)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true ==

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia

2009-02-04T03:09:18Z

JArneal: I think this one is the most important!

'''Conservapedia''', launched on November 21, 2006, is a [[conservative]], [[family-friendly]] [[Wiki]] [[encyclopedia]]. It was founded by [[teacher]] and [[attorney]] [[Andrew Schlafly]] with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class.

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “[[BCE]]” and "CE” from [[Wikipedia]], Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of [[Christianity]] and conservatism. Other occasions of [[liberal bias]], including the reversion of factual edits about an [[evolution]] case, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly [[history]] articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference, with information about history, [[math]], [[science]], [[politics]], [[religion]] and other topics. It also contains [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics|debates]], [[Category:Essays|essays]] and [[Conservapedia:Index|educational resources]].

In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of [[vandalism]] (See [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has [[Special:Statistics|tens of millions of page views]], and enjoys prominence on search engines.

==Leadership==

Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a [[democratic]] system and ends up as a [[mobocracy]], Conservapedia employs a [[Meritocracy|merit system]] and a hierarchy.

Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, [[sysop]]s, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to sysop and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images.

==Differences with Wikipedia==

Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the [[fact]]s, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones. Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity.

Wikipedia articles may contain [[trivia]], [[gossip]], profanity, and even [[Pornography|pornographic]]/sexually explicit images. The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

The administrative hierarchy prevents Conservapedia from being hijacked by a faction, and thus preserves it from mobocracy, as mentioned above.

==Influential editors and users==
*[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is the username of the aforementioned founder of Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly. He has contributed massively to Conservpedia since the beginning and is the final authority on article content and user conduct.

*[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], active at Conservapedia for over as year, and at Wikipedia for seven years, was the first elected bureaucrat at Wikipedia and has been extremely influential at both sites. At Conservapedia, he has primarily aimed at accuracy, rationality, and user cooperation.

*[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has contributed the majority of content to the extremely popular [[atheism]], [[evolution]], and [[homosexuality]] articles. The first two were articles of the year at Conservapedia, and the evolution article is one of the first results for a search on “evolution” in major search engines.<ref>http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8</ref>

*[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] has contributed a large amount of content about the [[art]]s, such as pages on [[literature]] and [[sculpture]]. His work has helped beautify the encyclopedia.

*[[User:TK|TK]] has made many substantive contributions and is known for his vigilance against vandals.

==Testimonies and Impact==

Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the [[media]], on [[blog]]s, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, and supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.

Conservapedia also provides information about the [[American]] people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace [[creationism]], and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml</ref> Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref> <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious</ref>

Search results for controversial subjects such as homsexuality and evolution contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.<ref>http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu5abSHtJKrEAHU9XNyoA?p=homosexuality&fr=ush-news</ref>

Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, ([[User:Taj|Taj]]) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” <ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]]
*[[Conservapedia:About|About Conservapedia]]
*[[Special:ListUsers/Siteadmin|List of Site Admins]]

==References==
<references/>

Blue

2009-02-04T03:01:35Z

JArneal: messed up

'''Blue''' is one of the three primary pigments, along with [[red]] and [[yellow]], and one of the three main colors of light along with red and [[green]]. With [[pigment]]s, such as with paint, blue is combined with yellow to make [[green]], or with red to make [[purple]].

In [[politics]], blue is the color of the [[Democrats]]. It is sometimes associate with wealth, such as in the terms [[blue blood]] and [[blue chip]].

The color blue corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 435 nanometers to 500 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Colors]]

Blue

2009-02-04T03:00:22Z

JArneal:

Green

2009-02-04T02:58:38Z

JArneal:

'''Green''' is a color made by combining [[yellow]] and [[blue]]. Green is the color of many plants and living things.

In the poem "Nothing Gold Can Stay", [[Robert Frost]] wrote:

<blockquote>''Nature's first green is gold, her hardest hue to hold.''<ref>http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/frost/gold.htm</ref></blockquote>

Green is also a term used to refer to environmentally friendly products. So ''green'' energy could be [[hydroelectric]] for instance, instead of [[fossil fuels]].

The color green corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 520 nanometers to 565 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

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

[[Category: Colors]]

Yellow

2009-02-04T02:57:05Z

JArneal: deleted weird sun comment and added wavelengths

'''Yellow''' is one of the three primary pigments along with [[red]] and [[blue]]. Mixing yellow and red makes [[Orange (color)|orange]] while mixing yellow and blue makes [[green]].

The color yellow corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 565 nanometers to 590 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Colors]]

Violet

2009-02-04T02:54:49Z

JArneal:

'''Violet''' is the [[color]] at the highest-frequency end of the [[spectrum]] of visible [[light]].

The color violet corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 380 nanometers to 435 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

''For a description of the Violet '''flower''', see: [[Violet (flower)]].''

== References ==

<references/>

==See Also==

*[[RoyGBiv]]

[[category:Colors]]

Orange (color)

2009-02-04T02:46:13Z

JArneal:

'''Orange''' is a non-primary [[color]]. It is made by combining [[red]] and [[yellow]].

The color orange corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 590 nanometers to 625 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Colors]]

Red

2009-02-04T02:42:26Z

JArneal:

'''Red''' may be any of a number of similar [[color]]s at the lowest frequencies of [[light]] discernible by the [[human]] [[eye]]. Red is one of three [[primary colors]] of light, along with [[yellow]] and [[blue]]. Red light has a wavelength range of roughly 625-760 nm. Lower frequencies are called [[infrared]], or "below red", and cannot be seen by human eyes, although some infrared frequencies can be felt as heat.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/lensop/sets/72157594342268252/</ref>

Red is supposedly the first color perceived by humans. Brain-injured persons suffering from temporary [[color-blindness]] start to perceive red before they are able to discern any other colors.<ref>http://www.tcrwf.org/PDF/April-2006-Newsletter.pdf</ref> [[Neolithic]] hunter peoples considered red to be the most important color endowed with life-giving powers and thus placed red [[ocher]] into graves of their deceased. This explains funds of [[skeleton]]s embedded in up to 10 kg of red powdered ocher. Neolithic cave painters ascribed [[magic]] powers to the color red. It can be stipulated that they painted [[animal]]s in red ocher or [[iron oxide]] to conjure their fertility.

Protective powers of the color red against evil influence were common belief. Objects, animals and trees were covered in red paint, and warriors painted their axes and spear-catapults red to endow the weapons with magic powers. Some of the Australian aborigines abide by this custom up to the present times. Neolithic hunters and Germanic warriors used to paint their weapons and even themselves in blood of slain animals. Roman gladiators drank blood of their dying adversaries to take over their strength. In other cultures, the newly born were bathed in blood of particularly strong and good looking animals.[[image:VanEyck.jpg‎|'''''Arnolfini Wedding'' by Jan Van Eyck 1434'''|center|300px]]Red painted amulets or red [[gems]], such as [[ruby]] or [[garnet]], were used as charms against the "evil eye". Wearing a red ruby was supposed to bring about invincibility. Red bed-clothes were customary in Germany up to the Middle Ages as protection against the "red illnesses", such as fever, rashes or even miscarriages (famous example is the painting Arnolfini Wedding by Jan Van Eyck, dated 1434).<ref>http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/color/reds2.html</ref>

In [[politics]], red has become the color associated with the [[Republican]] Party since its use by the TV networks on their electoral maps for states won by George W. Bush during the presidential election of 2000.

Red is also used to symbolize [[Communism]] and is prevalent in the flags of China and Soviet Russia. The slogan, "Better Red than dead," was popularized as a way of characterizing the appeasement of [[Communism]] by [[Bertrand Russell]] and his mostly [[British]] supporters.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=uIRi0BOvTi4C&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=%22better+red+than+dead%22+%22Bertrand+Russell%22&source=web&ots=WwFRaEaAmY&sig=h5XEKBrZOQidfBaca9EqJySsISM&hl=en</ref>

The color red corresponds to wavelengths of 625 nanometers to 740 nanometers in the electromagnetic spectrum.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Colors]]

Green

2009-02-04T02:39:04Z

JArneal:

'''Green''' is a color made by combining [[yellow]] and [[blue]]. Green is the color of many plants and living things.

In the poem "Nothing Gold Can Stay", [[Robert Frost]] wrote:

<blockquote>''Nature's first green is gold, her hardest hue to hold.''<ref>http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/frost/gold.htm</ref></blockquote>

Green is also a term used to refer to environmentally friendly products. So ''green'' energy could be [[hydroelectric]] for instance, instead of [[fossil fuels]].

The color green corresponds to wavelengths of 520 nanometers to 565 nanometers in the electromagnetic spectrum.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

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

[[Category: Colors]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-02-03T23:29:53Z

JArneal: /* Rearranged content */

User talk:MylesP

2009-01-30T20:01:09Z

JArneal: /* to: Myles */

==Platypus and China==

I think your contributions to the [[platypus]] article are being deleted because they are unsourced. I think, in all fairness, if you can provide sources of the same calibre as those in the [[kangaroo]] article, further revertions of your edits should be considered unjustified. Check out the sources at [[kangaroo]], I'm sure they'll prove usefull for substantiating your edits about the [[platypus]].

As for [[China]], I am unfortunately unaware of what disappeared in the merger. The lack of article content can't really be blamed on anyone. It takes time for content to be added. On the other hand if good content has been deleted that's another matter.
As to Conservapedia being a joke. People will have to decide that for themselves. I hope my list of pages which I think represent the [[Conservative]] ethos of Conservapedia will show that not to be the case. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|Have a look.]]

[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the China article, I didn't really cut anything out, I just was merging. As for the size...well, I didn't really add anything, It isn't really an interest of mine.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Contributions ==

We expect users who make entries in article talk pages to also assist us in our project by making beneficial edits to actual articles. Your participation in this area is appreciated. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:29, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== to: Myles ==

I read your Userpage. It made some good points, but I think you made a glaring error. The Wikipedia sourcing rules if I am not mistaken favor the "academic consensus" and likely the reports of major news outlets which I believe can be shown to have a liberal bent. Therefore, if Conservapedia grows and grows into the future which you seem to imply, it may not grow like you envision due to the sourcing rules. Also, the main page is likely to remain conservative in character (breaking news, etc.) and this will likely have an effect on the rest of the wiki. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I also believe that Conservapedia will never become like Wikipedia, but for different reasons. Sysops here rarely allow viewpoints or evidence that is counter to their opinion on a given subject. Hence, the articles will not change as long as those sysops concerned with those subjects are present. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 15:01, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama talkpage ==

Please, try to keep discussion about ways to improve the article. Thanks. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Breast cancer

2009-01-08T03:01:39Z

JArneal:

Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.[[User:Elrond|Elrond]] May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. ''However, most studies show that they are not.'' That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Read [[abortion]] without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So it's not about the research then? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here [http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481]: "''Although the increase in risk was relatively low,'' (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT) OF course, there's this: [http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/1/1/21][[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.[[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... ==

No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it ''does'' occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince ''men'' to perform regular breast self-examination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Risk factors ==

I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see [[oncologist]]).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the [[author]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article:
# ↑ http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
# ↑ http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
# ↑ Id.
# ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
# ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
# ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
# ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
# ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
# ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
# ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
# ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm
[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:
#NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
#British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
#Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
#British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
#International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
#European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
#Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
#Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
#International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
#International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
#British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
#International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
#Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
#American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
#British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
#Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
#International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking ==

I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf]
[http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/mdeaths.htm#direct deaths]. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Support==
''copied from PALMD's [[User_talk:Palmd001|talk]] page''

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further.
Peter you have my full support. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== NEJM studies ==

I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/25/1834] and [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Danger/Boycott==
Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be '''medically unrelated'''. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
==Breast Feeding==
According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk. Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== I'm back ==

Sorry to pester (OK, not really)...I have no interest in changing CPs anti-abortion position. But if you want to have an article that is truly informative about breast cancer, you may wish to limit the information to that which has been scientifically proven. For instance, the role of breast self-exam is no longer clear, and that of mammograms is complicated. The role of abortion is however well-known, in that there has never been a proven connection between breast cancer risk and abortion. Also, if there were, it would additionally need to be proved that avoiding abortion reduces breast cancer risk. The data aren't there. The fight against abortion is elsewhere and should not be fought by misinforming people about another health topic.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD" (specialty not in breast cancer), you only continue to prove [[liberal denial]]. See its point #14. Cheers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::I forgot that you do specialize in breast cancer...my mistake.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::Oh, and being an expert in human medicine certainly qualifies me better than anyone else at this site to comment. And inventing a new "liberal" rule every time you realize you are wrong doesn't help make your point. Godspeed. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:49, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::::What I saw in the past few edits was Fox unblocking you because it was a simple case of kindness on his part, and you insist on throwing your weight around. PalMD, it is not a right for you to be here; it is a priviledge, and right now you're not doing too well after just three edits. Don't let there be a bad fourth edit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::::When one has studied medicine for decades as Palmd001 has, I think he's entitled to "throw his weight around," and your assertion that he's not is mere pejorative, because you don't have a legitimate, logical, non-''ad hominem'' rejoinder :-). Plus, it strikes me that threats like this are inimical to the search for truth. See [[marketplace of ideas]].-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 11:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::: "PalMD", your claim of "being an expert in 'human medicine' certainly qualifies [you] better than anyone else at this site to comment" is a comical absurdity. No one is a general expert in "human medicine" and you're not fooling anyone here. I deal with physicians every day, including other physicians on this site, and I have never seen such an unjustified claim of expertise before. Don't pretend to be an expert beyond what you may know, and don't engage in [[liberal denial]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

I have to admit that what I love about this place is that you and Karajou feel free to display your ignorace for all to see. Despite your dealings with [[AAPS]], you are not a medical expert, and obviously know nothing about the field. What is your medical specialty that gives you all the breast cancer knowledge that an internist and medical professor misses? Ever read [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence|Orac]? He is an expert. Good stuff. My knowledge of the law is equally vague. I don't know a writ from a whit. You don't know an internist from an intern. Nothing wrong with that. But it's ok, your [[User:Karajou|enforcer]] will clean up your inconsistencies.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:47, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD", you're clueless. Try claiming to be an "expert in 'human medicine'" in a court of law sometime. Five minutes later, which is how long it will take for everyone to stop laughing at your claim, maybe you'll wake up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Let me just clarify for myself. You are an attorney who "talks to doctors". I am a practicing internist (yes, expert in human medicine), a professor of medicine, and an instructor of other physiscians. The "other doctors" here are? Anyway, I don't see how you have any qualifications in this area, and I ''know'' that I do. Patients come to me for just that. Sure, I don't dose chemotherapy, or administer radiation therapy, but believe it or not internists, especially academic internists have to know about this stuff and be able to research it. Anyway, God bless.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:04, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::May I add that it's insulting to a doctor to claim that he has no experience in the area, when you know very little other than anecdotal evidence of the same.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 10:58, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Interesting list of risk factors... ==

I note that all the risk factors listed have a source quoted, except one. If it is indeed the case that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" surely owes its readers a reliable source for this. Without a source I'm afraid I am driven to agree with the experts and the available medical evidence, and to continue in my mistaken (and apparently "liberal") belief that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Please enlighten me and show me how I am wrong. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:07, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Well, it ''has'' been demonstrated (an example [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1917-delaying-childbirth-increases-breast-cancer-risk.html here]) that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, so... if you are pregnant, technically speaking an abortion ''does'' in fact raise your relative risk. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:21, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::I guess what we're looking at then is [[placement bias]]: it's not actually a risk of ''abortion'', it's a risk of ''not having children!'' How odd that someone would deliberately confound the two, though.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 13:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Correct me if I'm wrong, does that not mean, then, by the same reasoning, abstinence also increases your risk of breast cancer? Does this mean that, following this reasoning logically, if you're female, you should be as promiscuous as possible, never use contraception, never have an abortion and try not to have a miscarriage in order to reduce your risk of breast cancer by the maximum degree? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:17, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Roe vs. Wade==

"the number of cases has significantly increased since the 1970s when abortion was legalized". This is a [[Logical Fallacy]]. yes, the rates of breast cancer have risen since the 70s, but so has vitually every form of cancer, due to a variety of causes, such as pollution, longer life expectancy, etc. you can't blame the increase of a single type of cancer on one medical procedure that you afre morally against just because there has been vague evidence-never proven, and shown to be highly unlikely by a study done at harvard-that abortion may be linked to breast cancer.

i don't know why this was gotten rid of, but that seems like blatant censorship to me.

:Even though all cancers have increased since 1970's, more money has been thrown at mammography than all other cancers. It is not a fallacy but a fact that abortion and breast cancer are linked. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:20, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say that that was a fallcy, i said that writing that breast cancer has risen since Roe vs wade is one, because it ignores all other factors.

== Small, but... ==

Shouldn't the term be bolded at the start of the article?--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Dictionary

2009-01-08T02:58:31Z

JArneal:

A '''dictionary''' is a book that contains an [[alphabet]]ized listing of ideally all known words in a particular language. Typically, the meanings of the words are given along with their origin, accepted spelling, pronunciation, [[part of speech]], and plurals. Some dictionaries also include example sentences or words translated from other languages. The creation of dictionaries can be a dynamic process, due to languages continually developing new words.

[[category:linguistics]]

Rorschach test

2009-01-08T02:57:02Z

JArneal: bolding

A '''''Rorschach test''''' is a [[Psychology|psychological]] test wherein the test subject looks at abstract, symmetrical ink-blots, and is asked what objects they remind them of.

[[Category:Psychology]]

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-08T01:47:51Z

JArneal: /* An Unbiased View (I hope) */

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-07T03:35:50Z

JArneal: /* ETrundel's POV */

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and "A--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)tilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Ex Parte Quirin

2009-01-07T00:19:27Z

JArneal: New page: In '''''Ex Parte Quirin''''' 317 U.S. 1 (1942), the United States Supreme Court ruled that in times of war, enemy combatants can be tried in military courts. In 1942, eight agents of ...

In '''''Ex Parte Quirin''''' 317 U.S. 1 (1942), the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled that in times of war, enemy combatants can be tried in military courts.

In 1942, eight agents of [[Germany]] infiltrated the United States with explosives intent on destroying war factories. One contingent of these agents was sighted in New York by a member of the [[Coast Guard]], but the contingent escaped when the Coast Guard member went to get reinforcements. One of the Germans, George Dasch, apparently realized that the mission was in jeopardy and went to Washington to turn himself and his comrades in to the [[FBI]]. The military quickly initiated a trial of the men, but one member of the defense, Kenneth Royall, disputed the constitutionality of the process. Hence the matter was brought to the Supreme Court. As a result of the ruling, the men were tried and found guilty in military court. Six were executed and two were sentenced to long prison terms.

== References ==

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/lt_111901-2.html

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Orbovich v. Macalester College

2009-01-06T23:41:41Z

JArneal: bolding

In '''''Orbovich v. Macalester College''''', 119 F.R.D. 411 (D. Minn. 1988), a federal district court rejected an assertion of privilege from [[discovery]] of academic [[peer review]] materials concerning denial of tenure.

In this widely cited decision, the court held that "the great weight of direct authority on the issue goes against defendant as does the relevant authority on the broader subjects of privilege and discovery." ''Id.'' at 413. The court relied on the:

:recent Supreme Court decisions in EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 80 L. Ed. 2d 41, 104 S. Ct. 1621 (1984) and Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 81 L. Ed. 2d 59, 104 S. Ct. 2229 (1984). In Shell Oil, the Supreme Court dispensed with any notion that the EEOC must establish viability of the discrimination allegation as a prerequisite to enforcement of its subpoena. Such a requirement would impair the orderly progress of discovery by permitting threshold litigation about the adequacy of the proof of discrimination. Id. at 71, 81. In a private Title VII action, the same impediment to the intended self-execution of discovery under the rules would arise, embroiling the court in threshold decisions on the merits, prior to the time of trial. Such unusual treatment of a civil litigant is not warranted on the grounds that her adversary is an academic institution. "Exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 94 S. Ct. 3090 (1974). Although academia has an acknowledged higher interest in the unimpeded selection of those who are best qualified to educate, even this implied freedom of association is well understood to be limited by Congressional enactments barring discrimination. Hishon, at 80 n.4, J. Powell, concurring.

:The rights of plaintiffs to obtain essential information in an effort to establish discrimination claims is a necessary infringement on the confidential peer review process. Rollins v. Farris, 108 F.R.D. 714 (E.D. Ark. 1985). After a thorough explication of the issue, Chief Judge Franklin Waters compelled the production of tenure files and deposition answers in a Title VII and § 1983 case, deciding to reject the approaches of Notre Dame and Gray, and choosing instead to follow Franklin & Marshall College. For the reasons set forth in his opinion, and above, the undersigned concludes that the Rollins approach is the correct one. As acknowledged by Judge Waters, not every discrimination case warrants such disclosure. Id. at 719. However, in this case, as in Rollins, the information sought does have an essential bearing on plaintiff's claims. Here, it is asserted that departmental members and faculty advisory committees recommended that plaintiff be tenured. Set against the assumption that peer review is at the heart of the tenure decision, the discovery sought by plaintiff is clearly within the scope of Rule 26(b), and goes to the issue of pretext. Interestingly, the Court in Gray, although employing a higher threshold for discovery, concluded that the contents of the tenure file were important to plaintiff's ability to prove his case, and ordered discovery.

:The same reasoning has been used to order discovery of medical peer reviews over the objections of physicians and hospitals, even in some instances with statutes providing for confidentiality. Quinn v. Kent General Hospital, 617 F. Supp. 1226 (D. Del. 1985); Schafer v. Parkview Memorial Hospital, 593 F. Supp. 61 (N.D. Ind. 1984); Dorsten v. Lapeer County General Hospital, 88 F.R.D. 583 (E.D. Mich. 1980); and Feminist Women's Health Center v. Mohammad, 586 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978), reh. denied, 591 F.2d 1343 (1979) and cert. denied, 444 U.S. 924, 62 L. Ed. 2d 180, 100 S. Ct. 262 (1979).

''Id.'' at 414-15. The court did hold that there should be a protective order governing the production of the confidential discovery documents.
[[Category:discovery]]
[[Category:peer review]]
[[Category:District Court Cases]]

Escobedo v. Illinois

2009-01-04T04:50:10Z

JArneal: adding first name

In '''''Escobedo v. Illinois''''', 378 U.S. 478 (1964), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established a right to counsel during [[police]] interrogations.

In 1964, Danny Escobedo was arrested with his sister in connection with a murder and brought to the police station, accused with the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. He continually asked to see his lawyer, but but always was denied his wishes. When his lawyer went to come to the police station to find him, he was not allowed to enter. Escobedo soon confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim, while under interrogation. He was soon convicted as a result.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction when Escobedo appealed to it. The Court decided that Escobedo's confession should not have been permitted as evidence and alloted the "[[exclusionary rule]]" to illegitimate [[confession]]s. The Court also delineated the "[[Escobedo Rule]]" which says that anyone has the right to a lawyer when an inspection is no longer a customary question but has begun to concentrate on a certain offender. The ruling continued on to detail that the offender has been taken into observation and the suspect has asked for his attorney, and the police have not addressed him of his right to stay mute, the suspect has been forbidden advice in encroachment of the [[Sixth Amendment]].<ref>Escobedo v. Illinois Supreme Court Case[http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/escobedo.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Sherbert v. Verner

2009-01-04T04:48:17Z

JArneal: New page: '''''Sherbert v. Verner''''', 374 U.S. 398 (1963) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the right to religious exercise and witholding of unemployment benefits. Adeil Sherbert , a...

'''''Sherbert v. Verner''''', 374 U.S. 398 (1963) was a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] case concerning the right to religious exercise and witholding of unemployment benefits.

Adeil Sherbert , a [[Seventh-Day Adventist]], practiced the [[Sabbath]] on Saturdays and thus refused to work Saturdays. When she lost her job because of her refusal to work on these days, the South Carolina Employment Security Commission refused to give her unemployment benefits, as they found her failure to do Saturday work unacceptable.

The court concluded that the South Carolina Employment Security Commission's denial of Adeil Sherbert's benefits was unjustified because it impaired Sherbert's ability to exercise her religion freely and was therefore in violation of the [[first amendment]] and [[fourteenth amendment]].

== Sources ==

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_526/

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Egg

2009-01-04T04:23:57Z

JArneal: adding category

An '''egg''' is a reproductive capsule produced by many animals to reproduce. Fertilized eggs contain [[embryo]]s which develop into whichever [[animal]] laid it.Some animals lay eggs which are only visible at a [[cell]]ular level, like humans for example. Usually the egg contains all the [[nutrient]]s the developing animal needs, but mammals for example develop within their mothers, eliminating the need for eggs. Most eggs are considered tasty, such as [[chicken]] eggs by humans, but they tend to [[Rotting|go bad]] after a short amount of time unless kept [[cold]]. But eggs provide excellent sources of nutrition because of the nutrients they contain.

[[category:biology]]
[[category:food and Drink]]

Egg

2009-01-04T04:20:15Z

JArneal: adding details

Castle

2009-01-03T03:14:09Z

JArneal:

A '''castle''' is a fortified, usually walled residence, as of a [[prince]] or [[noble]] in feudal times. In medieval times, the castle was the center of any large village. In times of war or seige, the castle would be the refuge for villagers who lived outside the castle walls.

[[Category:Royalty]]

Fatalism

2009-01-03T03:01:37Z

JArneal: format edits are easy (bolding)

'''Fatalism''' is the belief that all events are inevitable. Fatalism is not based on a cause-and-effect relationship, unlike [[fate]].
[[category:philosophy]]

Supernova

2009-01-03T02:55:34Z

JArneal:

[[Image:Crab vlt big.jpg|right|thumb|The Crab Nebula]]
A '''supernova''' is a stellar explosion involving a [[star]] at the end of its life, when its nuclear fuel is exhausted and it is no longer supported by the release of nuclear energy. This is one of the most powerful events in the universe. It often causes stars that are not normally visible to the naked eye to become apparent in the night sky due to the extreme amount of light given off in the explosion. If the star is particularly massive, then its core will collapse and in so doing will release a huge amount of energy. This will cause a blast wave that ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The result of the collapse may be, in some cases, a rapidly rotating neutron star that can be observed many years later as a radio pulsar.

While many supernovae have been seen in nearby galaxies, they are relatively rare events in our own galaxy. The last to be seen was Kepler's star in 1604. This remnant has been studied by many X-ray astronomy satellites, including ROSAT. There are, however, many remnants of Supernova explosions in our galaxy, that are seen as X-ray shell like structures caused by the shock wave propagating out into the interstellar medium. Another famous remnant was observed in 1054, when Chinese astronomers recorded a supernova so bright that it was visible during the day. This supernova is believed to be the one reported by [[Marco Polo]]. The explosion left behind a [[pulsar]] and a huge cloud of gas and dust known as the [[Crab Nebula]], which still can be seen today with its pulsar rotating 30 times a second and emitting X-rays in a fashion similar to a lighthouse. [http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html].

==External links==
[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html NASA - Supernova]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

User talk:BenJack

2009-01-03T01:29:32Z

JArneal:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:56, 2 January 2009 (EST)}}

== Hello ==

Hey. Check Aschlafly's talk page if you haven't yet. I found a picture of Bobby Jindal for you, and it is in the public domain, so it can be uploaded. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:29, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Pelops

2009-01-02T17:57:09Z

JArneal: confusing sentence

'''Pelops''' was the son of [[Tantalus]] who was served to the gods at a feast. Fortunately, the gods realized what was happening before eating Pelops, and so were able to re-assemble him. Pelops later married [[Hippodamia]] after beating her father in a chariot race. He had two sons: [[Atreus]] and [[Thyestes]].

[[category:Greek Mythology]]

Quartz

2009-01-02T17:49:42Z

JArneal:

{{Mineral
| name=Quartz
| image=Quartz.jpg
| cdesc=Silicon dioxide
| formula=SiO2
| colors=Clear (with no impurities)
| streak=White
| hardness=7
| cleavage=None
| fracture=Conchoidal
| sgravity=2.65
| csystem=rhombohedral
| chabit=6-sided prism ending in 6-sided pyramid
| enviro=
| occur=Hydrothermal veins, common constituent of granite and other igneous and metamorphic rocks
| nameorigin=[[Germany|German]] "Quarz".
}}
'''Quartz''' is the second most common [[mineral]] found on [[earth]] being the primary component of [[sand]]. More accurately, silicon dioxide, quartz has a chemical composition of SiO2 arranged in a repeating lattice forming [[crystal]]s. Pure quartz is clear, but colored variations are created because of impurities in the crystal. Quartz is number 7 on the [[Mohs Hardness Scale]].
 Quartz is used in a number of applications such as [[glass]] making, optical lenses, abrasives, in electrical components or decorative gemstones or other stones.
[[Category:Minerals]]

Wright Brothers

2009-01-02T17:46:32Z

JArneal: messed up again...

[[Image:Wright_brothers.jpg|thumb|200px|The Wright Brothers]]

'''Wilbur''' (1867-1912) and '''Orville Wright''' (1871-1948), the "[[Wright Brothers]]," were born and raised in Dayton, [[Ohio]]. Their father was a bishop. From an early age both of them showed an interest in flight, often sitting on the beach and observing birds as they dreamed of someday flying themselves. On December 17th, 1903, in Kitty Hawk, [[North Carolina]], the brothers conducted the first flight of heavier than air, powered aircraft in history. This first flight of the "Wright Flyer", completed by Orville Wright, was at an altitude of 12 ft and had a distance of 120 ft.

The government had funded a program to produce flight, a program that was directed by [[Smithsonian]] director Samuel Langley. Langley's flight, the Aerodrome, crashed twice in early 1903. Langley nonetheless claimed that he had built the first aircraft capable of flight, which triggered a feud between Langley and the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers did not widely publicize their success for the first few years out of concern that their aircraft designs were being taken.

[[category:aviation]]
[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Children of Clergy]]

Wright Brothers

2009-01-02T17:44:38Z

JArneal: oops

[[Image:Wright_brothers.jpg|thumb|200px|The Wright Brothers]]

'''Wilbur''' (1867-1912) and '''Orville Wright''' (1871-1948), the "[[Wright Brothers]]," were born and raised in Dayton, [[Ohio]]. Their father was a bishop. From an early age both of them showed an interest in flight, often sitting on the beach and observing birds as they dreamed of someday flying themselves. On December 17th, 1903, in Kitty Hawk, [[North Carolina]], the brothers conducted the first flight of heavier than air, powered aircraft in history. This first flight of the "Wright Flyer", completed by Orville Wright was at an altitude of 12 ft and had a distance of 120 ft.

The government had funded a program to produce flight, a program that was directed by [[Smithsonian]] director Samuel Langley. Langley's flight, the Aerodrome, crashed twice in early 1903. Langley nonetheless claimed that he had built the first aircraft capable of flight, which triggered a feud between Langley and the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers did not widely publicize their success for the first few years out of concern that their aircraft designs were being taken.

[[category:aviation]]
[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Children of Clergy]]

Wright Brothers

2009-01-02T17:40:35Z

JArneal:

[[Image:Wright_brothers.jpg|thumb|200px|The Wright Brothers]]

'''Wilbur''' (1867-1912) and '''Orville Wright''' (1871-1948), the "[[Wright Brothers]]," were born and raised in Dayton, [[Ohio]]. Their father was a bishop. From an early age both of them showed an interest in flight, often sitting on the beach and observing birds as they dreamed of someday flying themselves. On December 17th, 1903, in Kitty Hawk, [[North Carolina]], the brothers conducted the first flight of heavier than air, powered aircraft in history. This first flight of the "Wright Flyer" was at an altitude of 12 ft and had a distance of 120 ft and was completed by Orville Wright.

The government had funded a program to produce flight, a program that was directed by [[Smithsonian]] director Samuel Langley. Langley's flight, the Aerodrome, crashed twice in early 1903. Langley nonetheless claimed that he had built the first aircraft capable of flight, which triggered a feud between Langley and the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers did not widely publicize their success for the first few years out of concern that their aircraft designs were being taken.

[[category:aviation]]
[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Children of Clergy]]

Nun

2009-01-02T17:26:15Z

JArneal: italics not necessary

[[Image:nuns.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A group of nuns.]]
A '''nun''' is a celibate [[Catholic]] woman who is called to serve [[God]]. Nuns usually work inside a [[convent]] and are part of an [[order]]. A nun will often wear a [[habit]], a covering for the [[head]]. It is black and white and signifies that one serves [[God]].

Each order has a [[mission]], ordained by God. Some nuns work as [[teacher]]s in Catholic schools or as [[nurse]]s in [[hospital]]s. All nuns must take a [[vow of poverty]], and any money they earn goes towards supporting their convent or order.

A woman who is a [[widow]] who is not a virgin may become a nun, but a divorcee may not, unless approved by the [[Vatican]]. In Catholicism, women are not allowed to become [[priest]]s, but becoming a nun is considered a fulfilling and rewarding choice. Women interested in becoming nuns are encouraged to try living in a convent for a time so they might decide whether they would really like to serve God in that capacity.

A beginner nun is called a novice and is required to take vows of [[vow of chastity|chastity]] and poverty. Leaving the sisterhood after taking vows is frowned upon, much like [[divorce]].

===Episcopal Nuns===
The [[Episcopal]] Church also has women religious, who are known as "[http://www.stmaryseast.org/nuns_episcopal.htm nuns"]. They take vows of poverty and chastity as their Catholic counterparts do.

===Buddhist Nun===
[[Buddhist]] nuns are required to shave their [[head]].

==Famous Nuns==
* [[Mother Teresa]]
* [[Sister Helen Prejean]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.vocationsplacement.org/ Should I Become a Nun? Take the test!]

[[Category: Catholic Church]]

Absolute zero

2009-01-02T04:44:30Z

JArneal: /* Reaching Towards Absolute Zero */

'''Absolute zero''' is the minimum [[temperature]], defined as 0 [[kelvin]] on the [[absolute temperature scale]]s (the zero on the Kelvin scale has had to adjust, slightly, as measurements of absolute zero are refined). This corresponds to -273.15 degrees [[Celsius]] and -459.67 degrees [[Fahrenheit]]. At absolute zero, all motion (i.e. the movement of [[molecules]] in a [[gas]], [[atom]]s in a [[crystal]]) would cease.

No place in our universe are at absolute zero, but there are places that get close. [[Outer space|Space]] is approximately 2.73 kelvin. This is not because heat from [[star]]s in the universe keep the temperature up, but because of cosmic background radiation. The [[Cosmic Background Explorer]] (CBE) measured this value. The [[Big Bang theory]] predicts a leftover background radiation and that such radiation would have a relative uniformity, which is reinforced by the evidence presented by the CBE's observations. However, these observations cannot account for the [[horizon problem]].

== Reaching Towards Absolute Zero ==
It is considered theoretically impossible to achieve absolute zero, as an object with this temperature would have a theoretical volume of zero, but scientists have come quite close. The first example of this occurred in 1908 when [[Kammerlingh Onnes]] liquefied [[Helium]]. The temperature he reached was approximately four kelvin. Lower temperatures have been reached with different [[isotope]]s of Helium. A temperature of 0.3 kelvin has been reached with 3He. The lowest temperature ever reached by any substance was 280 picokelvins.

== Sources ==

[http://www.ph.rhul.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html http://www.ph.rhul.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html]
[[category:physics]]

Neutron Star

2009-01-02T04:39:28Z

JArneal: Redirecting to Neutron star

#REDIRECT [[Neutron star]]

Sandy Koufax

2009-01-02T04:35:54Z

JArneal: just a space...

'''Sandy Koufax''' was a [[Major League Baseball]] [[pitcher]]. He spent his entire career with the Brooklyn and [[Los Angeles Dodgers]]. He was one of the great pitchers in the game, winning 3 [[Cy Young Award]]s, 1 [[MVP]], and three pitchers triple crowns. During his tenure with the Dodgers, they went to six [[World Series]], winning three of them. Koufax pitched in four World Series. He was the first pitcher to win multiple Cy Young Awards. An arthritic elbow forced Koufax to retire at age 30. He was the youngest player ever to be elected to the [[Hall of Fame]].
[[Category:Baseball Players]]

Hamlet

2009-01-02T01:29:15Z

JArneal: /* Synopsis */

'''''Hamlet''''', perhaps Shakespeare's most famous play, was written {{years ago|1600}} years ago. It is a [[tragedy]] about incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].

The title character is the son of a murdered king, who appears in ghostly form to the young prince.<ref>[[Harold Bloom]]: "When we first encounter him, Hamlet is a university student who is not being permitted to return to his studies. He does not appear to be more than twenty years old, yet in Act V he is revealed to be at least thirty, after a passage of a few weeks at most." [http://www.princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html]</ref> The dead king accuses his brother, Claudius, (young Hamlet's uncle) of murdering him.

As Prince Hamlet investigates, he faces a conspiracy involving schoolmates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; [[Ophelia]]'s father [[Polonius]]; and even his own mother.

Hamlet's quest to avenge his father's murder destroys his own life and the lives of everyone close to him but a visiting college friend (Horatio).

Under normal circumstances, it would be [[treason]]ous to make any accusations of the king. It is only because of Hamlet's position as the son of the Queen that he is able to voice his suspicions. That, and his pretense of being "mad with grief" over his father's recent death. He betrays his suspicions in front of his mother and (step)father in an angry tirade and is watched closely from then on.

Polonious, the king's adviser, thinks that Hamlet is behaving strangely out of his love for Ophelia and orders her to break off her relationship with Hamlet.

Hamlet wonders why his mother would betray her husband and marry his brother only two months after his death. He grows indecisive ("To be or not to be") and unsure about the ghost's story. He comes up with an idea to stage a pantomime play to confirm or deny the story.
[[Image:Ophelia 1894.jpg|right|thumb|''Ophelia'' by John William Waterhouse.]]
:"The play's the thing / Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

During the play, he makes a nuisance of himself, commenting on the action and teasing Ophelia with [[double-entendre]]s, but he gets confirmation of the ghost's accusation when the King sees a scene showing a man poisoned in his his sleep and clasping the widow in an adulterous embrace. The King orders them to stop the play and storms out.

Hamlet confronts his mother (Queen Gertrude) in her bedroom, not knowing that the king's adviser Polonius is hidden behind a wall hanging. Hearing a movement, Hamlet kills the hidden spy; when he discovers that it is his girl friend's father, he hides the body in another part of the castle.

Ophelia, already upset over the sudden end of the courtship, becomes distraught after learning Hamlet has killed her father and drowns herself.

Hamlet's only friend in the play, his school friend [[Horatio]], is the only major character who is not killed. When Hamlet is behaving strangely (it might not be an act), he tells Horatio, "I am only mad north by northwest" and "There's a method to my madness".

==Synopsis==

Hamlet's friends among the castle guards see a ghost that looks like the dead king.
The King announces his wedding to Gertrude, widow of King Hamlet and father of Prince Hamlet. Her attempts to cheer him up fall flat, and in a soliloquy he accuses her of incest. His friends tell him about the ghost.
Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. He tells his sister Ophelia not to get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship.
Hamlet goes and sees the ghost, who tells him the new king murdered him. He tells Hamlet to avenge his death but not to hurt Gertrude. Hamlet doesn't tell his friends what he heard.
Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, and Ophelia tells her father that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.
The King and Queen send two schoolfriends of Hamlet to spy on him. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet comes in and starts insulting Polonius. The schoolmates come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. Actors come in, and Hamlet has Polonious hire them. The famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him, so he has the idea of using a play to prove the King's guilt. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet then goes to his mother's quarters, at the request of his friends. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius. After the verbal assault, the Queen realizes her own foolishness and vows to no longer sleep with the King.

==Movies==
Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. The Gibson version uses modernised English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The Branagh version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with [[Derek Jacobi]] in the title role.

==History==
Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.<ref>David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.</ref>

==References in Popular Culture==
In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.

The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with "Pull Me Under", a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]

Hamlet

2009-01-02T01:19:04Z

JArneal: /* Synopsis */

'''''Hamlet''''', perhaps Shakespeare's most famous play, was written {{years ago|1600}} years ago. It is a [[tragedy]] about incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].

The title character is the son of a murdered king, who appears in ghostly form to the young prince.<ref>[[Harold Bloom]]: "When we first encounter him, Hamlet is a university student who is not being permitted to return to his studies. He does not appear to be more than twenty years old, yet in Act V he is revealed to be at least thirty, after a passage of a few weeks at most." [http://www.princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html]</ref> The dead king accuses his brother, Claudius, (young Hamlet's uncle) of murdering him.

As Prince Hamlet investigates, he faces a conspiracy involving schoolmates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; [[Ophelia]]'s father [[Polonius]]; and even his own mother.

Hamlet's quest to avenge his father's murder destroys his own life and the lives of everyone close to him but a visiting college friend (Horatio).

Under normal circumstances, it would be [[treason]]ous to make any accusations of the king. It is only because of Hamlet's position as the son of the Queen that he is able to voice his suspicions. That, and his pretense of being "mad with grief" over his father's recent death. He betrays his suspicions in front of his mother and (step)father in an angry tirade and is watched closely from then on.

Polonious, the king's adviser, thinks that Hamlet is behaving strangely out of his love for Ophelia and orders her to break off her relationship with Hamlet.

Hamlet wonders why his mother would betray her husband and marry his brother only two months after his death. He grows indecisive ("To be or not to be") and unsure about the ghost's story. He comes up with an idea to stage a pantomime play to confirm or deny the story.
[[Image:Ophelia 1894.jpg|right|thumb|''Ophelia'' by John William Waterhouse.]]
:"The play's the thing / Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

During the play, he makes a nuisance of himself, commenting on the action and teasing Ophelia with [[double-entendre]]s, but he gets confirmation of the ghost's accusation when the King sees a scene showing a man poisoned in his his sleep and clasping the widow in an adulterous embrace. The King orders them to stop the play and storms out.

Hamlet confronts his mother (Queen Gertrude) in her bedroom, not knowing that the king's adviser Polonius is hidden behind a wall hanging. Hearing a movement, Hamlet kills the hidden spy; when he discovers that it is his girl friend's father, he hides the body in another part of the castle.

Ophelia, already upset over the sudden end of the courtship, becomes distraught after learning Hamlet has killed her father and drowns herself.

Hamlet's only friend in the play, his school friend [[Horatio]], is the only major character who is not killed. When Hamlet is behaving strangely (it might not be an act), he tells Horatio, "I am only mad north by northwest" and "There's a method to my madness".

==Synopsis==

Hamlet's friends among the castle guards see a ghost that looks like the dead king.
The King announces his wedding to Gertrude, widow of King Hamlet and father of Prince Hamlet. Her attempts to cheer him up fall flat, and in a soliloquy he accuses her of incest. His friends tell him about the ghost.
Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. He tells his sister Ophelia not to get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship.
Hamlet goes and sees the ghost, who tells him the new king murdered him. He tells Hamlet to avenge his death but not to hurt Gertrude. Hamlet doesn't tell his friends what he heard.
Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, and Ophelia tells her father that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.
The King and Queen send two schoolfriends of Hamlet to spy on him. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet comes in and starts insulting Polonius. The schoolmates come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. Actors come in, and Hamlet has Polonious hire them. The famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him, so he has the idea of using a play to prove the King's guilt. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. Hamlet finds him praying, and so decides not to kill him now, as then the King may go to heaven.

==Movies==
Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. The Gibson version uses modernised English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The Branagh version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with [[Derek Jacobi]] in the title role.

==History==
Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.<ref>David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.</ref>

==References in Popular Culture==
In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.

The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with "Pull Me Under", a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]

Market clearing price

2008-12-17T04:18:33Z

JArneal:

'''Market Clearing Price''', or '''MCP''', is the term for the price at which a product is sold at [[supply]] and [[demand]] equilibrium, or the point at which the supply and demand curves meet. At the MCP, there is as much of that product demanded as there is being sold. Market clearing price coincides with [[equilibrium quantity]]. Market clearing price is also known as equilibrium price and normal price.

[[Category:Economics]]

Equilibrium price

2008-12-17T04:16:37Z

JArneal: Redirecting to Market Clearing Price

#REDIRECT [[Market Clearing Price]]

Equilibrium quantity

2008-12-17T04:13:27Z

JArneal: New page: '''Equilibrium quantity''' is the quantity of a product being both supplied and demanded in market equilibrium. It corresponds to the quantity at which the supply and demand curves...

'''Equilibrium quantity''' is the quantity of a product being both supplied and demanded in market equilibrium. It corresponds to the quantity at which the [[supply]] and [[demand]] curves meet and coincides with the [[market clearing price]].

[[Category:Economics]]

Market clearing price

2008-12-17T04:09:10Z

JArneal: New page: '''Market Clearing Price''', or '''MCP''', is the term for the price at which a product is sold at supply and demand equilibrium, or the point at which the supply and demand curves...

Anti-Tank Guided Missiles

2008-12-17T03:57:33Z

JArneal:

[[Image:atgmtow.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Soldiers firing an ATGM.]]

'''Anti-Tank Guided Missiles''' are man-portable weapons designed to allow infantry units to destroy tanks.

Typically they consist of a wire guided missile fired from a low-profile firing post. The missiles are solid-fueled and warheads are [[shaped charge]]s, with some missiles using dual warheads or [[explosively formed penetrators]]. Some laser and radar guided missiles exist, and some of these have introduced fire-and-forget attacks.

Tactically they are used to both defend infantry from attack by tanks, and to actively tank hunt. The stealthiness of an ATGM team and the long engagement ranges (sometimes up to 3000m) can make it difficult for tank crews to spot the firers. A tank's main defense is to try and return fire to distract the missile's operator and/or use obscuring smoke, while maneuvering aggressively to avoid being hit. Only the best tanks can withstand a direct hit from a modern ATGM, and then only over the frontal arc.

They are also the main weapons of anti-tank helicopters. These are generally the same missiles as the ground-based systems, and are fired from a hover. ATGMs are also often mounted on vehicles such as [[IFV]]s as a defense against tanks.

[[Category:Weapons]]

Cryptosystem

2008-12-17T03:30:22Z

JArneal:

'''Cryptosystem''' is the associated items of cryptomaterial that are used as a unit and provide a single means of encryption and decryption.

== Related Topics ==

[[cipher]]
 [[code]]
 [[decrypt]]
 [[encipher]]

== Sources ==
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/c/01442.html

[[Category:Military]]

Foul ball

2008-12-17T03:23:40Z

JArneal: details, details

{{move|Foul ball}}
[[Image:Baseball Ball a.jpg|left|120px]]
In [[baseball]], a '''foul ball''' is a batted [[ball]] that lands on foul territory between home plate and first base or third base, bounds past first or third base on or over third territory, first touches foul territory beyond first or third base, or touches a player, umpire or any object not part of the playing field while over foul territory. The first two foul balls of any one batter's at-bat count as strikes, but a batter cannot be gain his third strike and be declared "out" on a foul ball.
{{clear}}

== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.

== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]
== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]

{{baseball}}

Table sugar

2008-12-17T03:15:07Z

JArneal: adding sucrose info

'''Sugar''' is a sweet ingredient added to foods such as cookies, cakes, and pastries. Sugar comes from beets or sugarcane and is generally grown in tropical environments. Sugar plays an important role in the commerce of many countries, including [[Jamaica]], [[Guatemala]], and [[Bolivia]].

Sugar is sweet because it contains sucrose (C12H22O11), which is a [[solid]] white disaccharide that alters the [[flavor]] of foods. Sucrose is a [[carbohydrate]]<ref>[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html Carbohydrates]</ref>. When digested, sugar provides approximately 4 calories per gram.<ref>[http://whatscookingamerica.net/Sugar.htm Sugar, The Natural Sweetener]</ref>

Sucrose is broken down in the body is glucose and fructose.

When consumed in large quantities, sugar is [[Healthy eating|unhealthy]], may lead to [[tooth decay]], [[obesity]], or [[diabetes]]. Many processed food products such as [[Twinkies]], children's breakfast cereals, and candy bars contain large amounts of sugar.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Dark horse

2008-12-17T03:08:36Z

JArneal: grammar

A '''dark horse''' is a little-known candidate who seems to come from nowhere at the last minute to contest a major party nomination. [[James K. Polk]] was the dark horse who unexpectedly won the [[Democratic Party]] nomination in 1844, and won the election. Unsuccessful dark horses include [[William Jennings Bryan]] (winning the Democratic nomination in 1896 but losing the election), and [[Wendell Willkie]] (winning the [[Republican Party]] nomination in 1896 but losing the election).

[[Category:Politics]]