Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia

2007-04-02T16:18:33Z

JC: copyedit

'''Wikipedia''' is an online [[encyclopedia]] founded by [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. It has millions of entries on topics ranging from phrases used by obscure rock bands<ref>Here is a Wikipedia entry: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst] is the name of a single by TISM. It was the second and last to be released off De RigueurMortis (2001)."</ref> to arcane British royalty.<ref>Did you know that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell]'s grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne?</ref> Its abundant use of gossip attracts many visitors.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> Content on Wikipedia is controlled by [[Satan]] and the cumbersome GNU "Free" Documentation License (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia. Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource.

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, a company that sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevive Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> Since 2003 Wikipedia has been run by the Wikimedia Foundation.

==False Claim About Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell</ref>

==Seigenthaler Hoax and Reaction of Wikipedia Editors==
In May 2005, an anonymous user created a Wikipedia article on John Seigenthaler Sr, a journalist and an assistant to former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy that stated:<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.
</blockquote>
In September 2005, a friend of Seigenthaler's discovered the Wikipedia entry and alerted Seigenthaler, whom then contacted the Wikimedia foundation to have the article corrected, however the false biography had remained on Wikipedia for many months.
Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt later discovered the prepetrator of the prank was Brian Chase, an acquaintance of Seigenthaler Sr.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> John Seigenthaler Sr later published an article in ''USA Today'' on the whole affair.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>

Instead of being apologetic, Wikipedia editors criticized Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly complaining of the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
:"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."

The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy" and finally downgraded in its stable version to "incident". Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrived 23 March 2007.</ref> becaue it catapulted it <ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref> from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites, and gave it its first substantial publicity outside America.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Daniel Brandt controversy==
The Daniel Brandt biographical entry was created by SlimVirgin on 28 September 2005 so that the subsection of criticism could be removed from the Chip Berlet mainspace biography. On two occasions, once prior and once after, SlimVirgin stated she did not consider Daniel Brandt a credible source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554] In August 2005 SlimVirgin and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangerdude Rangerdude] discussed the use of "scholarly" material cited to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (PRA) on the Roots of Anti-Semitism talk page and had this exchange:

:"PRA is not the kind of organization any of our guidelines is trying to stop us from using, and I'm certain of this because I've been involved in drafting a lot of the information about sources and original research....PRA is a research group and Berlet is a published journalist and author. ...WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? says: ''"A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a '''Socialist Workers' Party''' magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay."'' This clearly doesn't have in mind the type of research group Chip works for. You may find PRA extreme, but it's not a political or religious group, party, or movement.--SlimVirgin 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude only moments before debunked Berlet's scholarly credentials, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20212920&oldid=20187928] cited WP:RS on using extreme websites, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20246130] and then rejoined,
:"Curiously your example of the '''Socialist Worker's Party''' does little to help your case as Mr. Berlet's own biography proudly states that he has worked on behalf of this very same extremist group! --Rangerdude 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin then changed Official Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy to make Berlet appear mainstream and not an extremist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes]

Next an old dormant dispute between Brandt and Berlet from a decade and half ago was reignited. The two worked together for many years, but had a falling out in 1991; Brandt was quoted as an anonymous critic from a ''FrontPage magazine.com'' citation in Berlet's wiki entry, with these words,

:“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.” [http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352]

Berlet expressed displeasure at the criticism and publicly named the "leftist writer";
:This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic ''Spotlight'' newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21]

Berlet wanted the criticism of him and his organization removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Fairness_and_Balance] On the same day the Daniel Brandt biography was created to cast Brandt and his organization as extremist using a guilt by association smear of being aligned with Holocaust denial. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research#_note-0] Who was the source of the claim? A self published source, Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. According to the Introduction [http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left] to the self published source, Berlet's allegation Brandt and his organization were aligned with Holocaust deniers first appeared two months earlier in September of 1991 in an ''extremist'' publication, the Marxist-Leninist ''Guardian''. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html] The ''Guardian'' newspaper, which at one time had a reporter, Wilfred Burchett, who participated in interrogations of American POWs in North Korean prison-of-war camps, is cited in a contemporaneous book from 1992 by the mainstream publisher ''Prometheus Books'' which is entitled, ''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America'', by John George, Laird Wilcox, ISBN 1-57392-058-4, as an extremist publication. See Chapter 9, pgs. 125-131. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp]

Added to all these violations of Official Wikipedia Policy is this event, Berlet citing himself and personally inserting potentially libelous and defamatory material from a questionable and self-published source into an article of a living person and fellow registered user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921]

Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's view that Brandt was not a "credible source", and told ''Editor & Publisher'',
:"I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all." [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]

After possible malicious intent of slander was being publicly discussed surrounding the events which lead to the creation of Brandt's entry, Wales comments to ''Editor & Publisher'' were removed from Brandt's bio under the "tabloid clause" of Reliable Sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334]

Meantime, numerous Wikipedia Administrators have been caught in the crossfire of a drive-by smear against Brandt in an old leftist sectarian dispute none of them know anything about.

==Sinbad Hoax==
On March 16, wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League Hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer Vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==Jimmy Wales' Denial that Larry Sanger was a Co-Founder==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associate Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added.

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF%27DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Iron

2007-04-02T11:23:22Z

JC: internal link

'''Iron''' is a metal.

It can be dug up straight out of the ground and used without much trouble. This allowed early man to discover it early, during the [[Iron Age]] in fact.
Iron weapons were far better than ones made of softer metals, like [[bronze]]. A [[sword|swordsman]] with an iron sword could cut a bronze sword in half if his enemy tried to block him with it.
Iron was also used in [[construction]]. The [[Eiffel Tower]] and [[Golden Gate Bridge]] are both made of iron. The strength of iron meant that [[engineers]] could build much bigger structures with it than with stone.
When iron [[corrosion|corrodes]] it is called [[rust]]. Corrosion on other metals is not called rust.

Iron is also a component of red blood cells in the form of hemoglobin.

Something made of, or largely composed of, iron can be described as [[irony]].

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Elements]]

Irony

2007-04-01T16:41:27Z

JC: internal link

'''Irony''' is commonly used in U.S. English to refer to a type of rhetoric whereby a statement or assertion is made with the intention to put across the opposite meaning. E.g. "Oh I ''really'' like your coat." In British English this is more commonly referred to as [[sarcasm]].

In British English, ''irony'' refers to an action or occurrence that is incongruous or amusingly unexpected. An example of this definition of ''irony'' might be a boxer betting his life savings on a fight he expects to lose, and then accidentally winning the fight.

Something made of, or largely composed of, [[iron]] can be described as irony.

Iron

2007-04-01T16:32:52Z

JC: internal link

Shellfish

2007-04-01T16:23:35Z

JC: +cat.

Shellfish is a culinary term for aquatic invertebrates used as food: molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Both saltwater and freshwater invertebrates are considered shellfish. Many gentile societies have eaten shellfish as a staple diet for thousands of years.

== Biblical Views on Shellfish ==

Shellfish is referred to only twice in the Bible; it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and there are no references in the New Testament or in the letters of Paul. Jews, and some Christians, do not eat shellfish because of the Old Testament prohibition against it. <ref>http://www.kyrieology.com/drupal/wwje/christiansgokosher</ref><ref>http://www.abcog.org/food.htm</ref>

All references in Amplified Version

=== Old Testament ===

* Leviticus 11:9-12 - 9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, these you may eat; 10 But all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all the creeping things in the waters, and of all the living creatures which are in the waters, they are [to be considered] an abomination and abhorrence to you. 11 They shall continue to be an abomination to you; you shall not eat of their flesh, but you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that has not fins or scales shall be abhorrent and detestable to you.

* Deuteronomy 14:9-10 - 9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales you may eat, 10 And whatever has not fins and scales you may not eat; it is unclean for you.

==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:non-Kosher foods]][[Category:Abominations]]

Pig

2007-04-01T16:23:20Z

JC: +cat.

'''Pigs''' are [[omnivore|omnivorous]] mammals originally native to Europe. Bacon, pork, often in the form of [[sausages]], and ham come from pigs. Pigs have long snouts with flattened ends, curly tails, and are typically pink in color. Feral pigs, however, rapidly revert to the dark and bristly form of the [[wild boar]], from which domestic pigs are derived.

Male pigs are called boars, female pigs are called sows, and baby pigs are called piglets.

Footballs are traditionally made from a pig's skin, and for the earliest ballgames, an inflated pig's [[bladder]] was used for a ball.

Pigs are surprisingly intelligent, and trained pigs are used in parts of Europe to root for [[truffles]]. The [[Vietnam]]ese pot-bellied pig is a small house-trained variety, which is kept indoors so that [[mosquito]]s bite it in preference to the human residents.

== Biblical View ==
By rule of the Book of Leviticus, eating pigs or even handling their hide is an [[abomination]]. , "...the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7-11:8).

[[Category: Mammals ]][[Category:Abominations]]

Saddam Hussein

2007-04-01T16:21:00Z

JC: Liberation of Iraq

'''Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti''', (''Arabic'' صدام حسين عبد المجيد التكريتي) (April 28, 1937 – December 30, 2006) was the [[Sunni]] president of [[Iraq]] from July 16, 1979<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aasaddambio.htm</ref> to December 14, 2003<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3317429.stm</ref>.

As is often the case, national alignments can change rapidly. During the 1980s, during the [[Iran-Iraq War]], the [[United States of America|United States]] considered Saddam Hussein to be a friend and assisted him with loans <ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/</ref>. During the 1990s, however, after Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait Hussein was considered one of America's greatest enemies.

He was one of the few modern leaders who used [[WMD]]s, specifically [[chemical weapon]]s, in war; and was the instigator of at least two wars: the [[Iran-Iraq War]] during the 1980s and Iraq's August, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.

Evidence presented to the [[United Nations]] by the Bush administation brought about the 2003 AD US led coalition to invaded Iraq and put a stop to Saddam Hussein's [[WMD]] program<ref>[http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20070401/Opinion/104010038]</ref>. A further aim was to break the ties between [[al Qaeda]] and Saddam Hussein which the Bush administartion had known about months before <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp]</ref>.

Captured by U.S. forces on December 13, 2003, Saddam was brought to trial under the Iraqi interim government set up by U.S.-led forces. On November 5 2006, he was convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him, and was sentenced to death by hanging. Saddam was executed on December 30, 2006. Interestingly, the name "Saddam" means "one who confronts".{{fact}}

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:Abortion rates by US state

2007-04-01T15:59:18Z

JC: There is some worth.

Can anyone explain to me how this chart is encyclopedic material? It seems much more like cruft. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

I added emphasis to the noted exceptions on the bottom half to match the top half (Kerry's bold states go down 35ranks, Bush's bold states will now go up 25 ranks). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is worthless ... it contains no relevant information. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It makes Kerry looklike a killer of babies. That is surely worth something?
::"The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live" (Acts 7:19)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 11:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Comedy

2007-04-01T14:47:53Z

JC: copyedit

A classical meaning of comedy is comical theatre as in one of two types of [[Greece|Greek]] plays (the other is [[tragedy]]). Not necessarily funny, but ends happily.

A more popular mesning is the use of humour with an intent to provoke laughter in general.

==Weblinks==

[[Special:Random|Comedy generator]] (Suitable for minors)

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-04-01T14:26:47Z

JC: /* Requested edits */ add category

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Embryonic stem cells

2007-03-31T17:09:52Z

JC: Government funding

Embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a [[blastocyst]]. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after [[fertilization]]. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": [[ectoderm]], [[endoderm]] and [[mesoderm]]. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists, particularly those having pro-choice political views, claim that embryonic stem cells can differentiate better, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

Upstanding [[pro-life]] conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos, which are then discarded, as tantamount to [[abortion]], a hideous and [[evil]] practice. President Bush was pressured by [[Liberal]] [[Scientist]]s into funding stem cell research, resulting in the death of hundreds of human embryos[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html].

Brian Warner

2007-03-30T13:41:49Z

JC: ref

Marilyn Manson (real name Brian Warner) is a controversial [[heavy metal]], [[shock rock]] musician.

Conservatives have been concerned in the past because of songs made by Marilyn Manson that advocate [[suicide]] and mock [[Jesus]] and religion. Some claim that Marilyn Manson is a reverend in the Church of Satan although there is no proof of this [http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/manson.htm].

Manson semi-retired from the music industry in the late 1990s and started making [[Neo-Gothic Art]].

[[Category:Music]]

Coal

2007-03-30T13:11:14Z

JC: add ref.

Combustible material which was formed by decomposing plant and animal material placed under intense pressure during the [[Great Flood]] [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_record_buried_in_coal].

Coal

2007-03-30T13:08:50Z

JC: Great Flood

Combustible material which was formed by decomposing plant and animal material placed under intense pressure. Some [[Christians]] believe that this pressure was caused by the [[Great Flood]] [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_record_buried_in_coal].

Conservapedia talk:Panel

2007-03-30T13:03:44Z

JC: Suffer little children

That hardly sounds like a panel of objective experts...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is it supposed to be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have SERIOUS issues with the "anonymous members" bit. Members in this position should HAVE to be marked as such. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::OOO, OOO, can I be a member? I'll be ever so good! I promise I won't let my high school studies, lack of life experience or religious brain washing get in the way of making good fair decisions! Pwetty Please? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It has already been set up as anonymous and it is unlikely to change. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 16:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:So, a few anonymous Panel members could push their own point of view, and once it gets pushed back towards whatever passes as "neutrality" here, the Panel members could declare that this is a major conflict and should be handled... by the Panel. And nobody would of the conflict of interest. How convenient! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: how do we know a panel even exists! This looks serious bent, like a banana republic wiki! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Sunlight is the best disinfectant. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"We do not censor in any way"

It is a shame that many of your editors do not agree with that policy, see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=56791&oldid=48604 for one incidence of very silly deletion. If you ''truly'' did not censor you would not keep closing the facility to create accounts.
:Well, to be fair, we are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia because (1) we do not follow the GFDL and (2) Andy made it a rule.
:However, there is censoring going on. Look at Conservative's edits that removed entire sections (with cites) simply because he didn't want his little propaganda piece to be cluttered with silly things like science. Or heck, look at some of the locked articles and their histories in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::How do we know that these panel members are up to date on the "major conflicts" they recieve? Do they actively edit here and follow the ongoing debates? What's to stop them from becoming another [[user:conservative]] or [[user:scorpion]]? And they should definitely '''not''' be anonymous. It's easy to hide behind anonymimity (sp, too lazy to look it up for real), but it takes a real man (or woman) to stand up and declare "I did it." [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] is NOT a member of The Panel and no-one should contact [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] on his talk page or via email regarding ANY decisions that may come up for review by The Panel. Besides, bribery is unethical. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think having the homeschoolers form the panel is a wonderful idea. Harken the words of our Lord and savior himself:
::"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14)
::"Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." (Mark 7:27)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 09:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Astrology

2007-03-30T10:15:36Z

JC: internal link

Astrologists use their knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details to understand, interpret, and organize information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer.

Astrology is often considered as pseudoscience by [[scientist]]s, as it does not make its predictions via [[Scientific method|scientific means]]. Following the science methodologies adopted by [[Creation science]], many astrologers consider themselves to be using scientific methods to show that such scientific evidence is consistent with their understanding and interpretation of the heavens and its effect on human affairs<ref>http://www.cyberastro.com/articles/article3.asp</ref>.

The Bible<ref>http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen13.html</ref> makes many references to astrology:

:''And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;'' (Luke 21:25)

:''The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,'' (Psalm 19:1-4)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astrology]]

Astrology

2007-03-30T10:12:42Z

JC: copyedit

Astrologists use their knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details to understand, interpret, and organize information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer.

Astrology is often considered as pseudoscience by [[scientist]]s, as it does not make its predictions via scientific means. Following the science methodologies adopted by [[Creation science]], many astrologers consider themselves to be using scientific methods to show that such scientific evidence is consistent with their understanding and interpretation of the heavens and its effect on human affairs<ref>http://www.cyberastro.com/articles/article3.asp</ref>.

The Bible<ref>http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen13.html</ref> makes many references to astrology:

:''And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;'' (Luke 21:25)

:''The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,'' (Psalm 19:1-4)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astrology]]

Date of creation

2007-03-30T09:57:01Z

JC: Hebrews 11:3

The date of creation 9:00 AM, Friday, October 26, 4004 BC according to certain followers of Archbishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]. This date is accepted by some Young Earth Creationists, but some, such as Henry Morris, accept a date that may have been a few thousand years earlier. This is based upon the Genesis genealogies. Some scholars accept that there may be some gaps in the genealogies. [http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml]

Creationists cite [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], who wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/] It should be noted Barr also wrote a book attacking biblical inerrancy. [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1786]
[[Category:Creationism]]

:''Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.'' (Hebrews 11:3)

Stone Age

2007-03-30T09:43:02Z

JC: Creationist timeline

{{stub}}

The Stone age is the [[prehistory|prehistoric]] time before the [[Age of Metal]]. It is divided into two parts; [[Paleolithic age|Paleolithic]] and [[Neolithic age|Neolithic]]. During the Paleolithic age, man harvested wild plants and animals for food. Agriculture began in the Neolithic age. The dates of the Stone age are debated but are generally accepted to be from 8,000 BC to 4,000 BC by conventional science [http://www.bergen.org/technology/stone.html]. Some [[creationism|Creationists]] dispute that timeline because [[God]] [[creation|created]] the world about 4000 BC.

Torture

2007-03-29T13:57:27Z

JC: ref

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment defines torture as:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."<ref>[http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition]</ref>

Torture is widely practised in many countries throughout the world as a means of intimidating the ruling regime's opponents. Since 1997, incidences of torture or ill treatment by the police have been reported in over 140 different countries.<ref>[http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext]</ref> By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:<ref>[http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods]</ref>

* Rape and sexual abuse in custody

* Mock execution or threat of death

* Prolonged solitary confinement

* Electric shocks

* Suspension of the body

* Suffocation

The US has been accused of using torture, such as [[waterboarding]] <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref>, as an interrogation method at the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]]<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1981955,00.html]</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377623&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm]</ref> and also kidnapping people of Middle Eastern descent in a process known as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6359875.stm extraordinary rendition].

The US maintains that its [[coercive interrogation]] techniques are not "[[torture]]" (see [[McCain Amendment]]).

== References ==

1. Article 1, http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition

2. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext

3. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1981955,00.html

5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377623&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm

Torture

2007-03-29T13:53:31Z

JC: internal link

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment defines torture as:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."<ref>[http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition]</ref>

Torture is widely practised in many countries throughout the world as a means of intimidating the ruling regime's opponents. Since 1997, incidences of torture or ill treatment by the police have been reported in over 140 different countries.<ref>[http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext]</ref> By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:<ref>[http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods]</ref>

* Rape and sexual abuse in custody

* Mock execution or threat of death

* Prolonged solitary confinement

* Electric shocks

* Suspension of the body

* Suffocation

The US has been accused of using torture, such as [[waterboarding]], as an interrogation method at the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]]<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1981955,00.html]</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377623&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm]</ref> and also kidnapping people of Middle Eastern descent in a process known as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6359875.stm extraordinary rendition].

== References ==

1. Article 1, http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition

2. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext

3. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1981955,00.html

5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377623&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm

Waterboarding

2007-03-29T13:51:21Z

JC: internal link

'''Waterboarding''' is a method of [[torture]] or coercion
dating back to the time of the Italian Inquisition in the 1500s. A tightly bound prisoner has porous cloth placed over his mouth and nose. Water is poured over his face in such a manner as to convince the prisoner that he is drowning. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870]</ref> The practice was revived in the wake of [[9/11]] terrorism but quickly attracted harsh criticism one it came to light.

In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the Phillipines during the Spanish-American War. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html]</ref><ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870]</ref> In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labour for waterboarding a US civilian. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html]</ref> It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1026/dailyUpdate.html]</ref> and a US soldier was court-martialed after ''The Washington Post'' (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html]</ref> <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html]</ref>

CIA sources describe the technique as used in [[coercive interrogation]] thus:

''"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."'' <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866]</ref>

According to the same sources, CIA officers who submitted to the technique in training lasted an average of 14 seconds before "surrendering." In a radio interview in October 2006, US Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] confirmed that waterboarding had been used in the interrogation of senior [[Al-Qaeda]] suspects, but denied that the technique amounted to [[torture]]. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1026/dailyUpdate.html]</ref>

== References ==

1. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

2. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866

3. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1026/dailyUpdate.html

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html

5. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

7. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1026/dailyUpdate.html

8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html

Steve Irwin

2007-03-29T13:39:14Z

JC: copy edit

Steve Irwin is famous for how he died, being poisoned by a big [[fish]] [http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/05/irwin.death/index.html]. He also made TV shows about animals. Steve Irwin also featured as a character in [[South Park]].

Date of creation

2007-03-29T13:36:11Z

JC: internal link

9:00 AM, Friday, October 26, 4004 BC according to certain followers of Archbishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]].

Cabbage

2007-03-29T13:26:04Z

JC: Origin

Cabbage is a round leafy vegetable whose inner leaves are usually lighter than its outer ones. Although both [[lettuce]] and cabbage are used in salads, only cabbage is cooked.

According to some [[creationism|creationists]] cabbages were likely created by [[God]] on the third day of [[creation]] about 4000 BC.
:''And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.'' (Genesis 1:11-13)

[[Category:Food and drink]]
[[Category:Cruciferae]]

User talk:Ilikebigbibles

2007-03-29T13:11:54Z

JC: /* Probation */ Resist temptation.

Excuse me, but that statement you removed was not offensive. It was made at a time when the article '''was''' a load of nonsense. Look at the history. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*Ah, right. my apologies, i thought you were just making trouble. Have a nice day. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 01:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do not vandalize articles by changing factual information (like New Jersey to New Hampshire). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*Please do not accuse me of vandalism unnecessarily. That was not factual information, it was just an example of a state. And i decided to replace New Jersey with New Hampshire, because it is a more conservative, and therefore better state. If you feel that the article would be more beneficial with NJ, feel free to change it back. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 02:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*Ah, I thought that was an actual legal brief. Okay. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I like the [[King James Bible|KJV]] [http://www.bartleby.com/108/] too, though I suspect mine isn't as big as yours.
:[[User:JC|JC]] 09:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::lol! good reference site btw, cheers. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 09:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Your contributions seem sloppy and aimless. I'm thinking of reverting them all. Please explain what you are doing here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
*Please stop inserting red blocks with misspelled word and 'dig' about conservative POV, pending an explanation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well I have to admit Ed, I'm slightly offended that you think my contributions are sloppy and aimless, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Perhaps you would like to go into a bit more detail and suggest potential areas for improvement? I'm currently working on a template called [[Template:vandalcandidate]], which should serve as a useful template to put on controvertial articles, to warn readers that the article at any given time is not necessarily representative of the conservative position, due to the relentless vandals that some of the more controvertial articles on this site seem to attract. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Spelling, for a start. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Vandalcandidate&diff=68512&oldid=68509] Are you a student, or what? If you are a student, comments from 'the teacher' should not offend you; you ought to welcome them. And please fix my spelling errors, too! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== The conservative position ==

I'm not sure the goal of this project is to present only the conservative position on any topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of each article to present "trustworthy" information? I think this would include mentioning other viewpoints than conservative ones on certain topics.

Many topics are controversial, with a sharp split between liberal and conservative POV. I think the Schlaflys want both sides of controversies mentioned. Pending a confirmation that they '''do not''', please:
#do not add your template using the subst: keyword '''Edit''': Roger. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 10:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
#do check your idea of policy with [[User:Aschlafly]] or any other senior admin. '''Edit''': Done. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 10:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

These are my detailed suggestions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Warning==

Stop all other work and answer my questions, or I will suspend your editing privileges temporarily. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
*Relax. Thats a big 'roger' on points 1 and 2 above - and yes i'm a student. Thankyou, oh teacher, for teaching me the ways of the wise. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 10:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are blocked for two hours. I need an explanation of your proposed template by the time you get back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yep you failed to notice that i explained it on the template talk page before you blocked me. However, I forgive you. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 02:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I see a fellow sysop told you not to place your vc template. I haven't seen anyone else tell you otherwise since your ban expired. If they did, please point it out; otherwise, I'd strongly recommend waiting until Ed is online so that you can discuss the matter further with him.

I also note that you reverted Ed's blanking of your user page 'as per our agreement.' I see no evidence of any such agreement. I see you telling Ed that you're going to put it back and see if he has any problems. An agreement typically requires both parties to actually agree. I'm going to remove it until you have a chance to discuss further with Ed. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
*OK roger that. When i said agreement, what i meant was that i would put it back, and I had advised Ed of that so that if there are any problems he can let me know. As for the vc template, yep good point, however i consider it a very valuable template, even if only on talk pages. I will however refrain from adding it until further discussion with Ed, as per your advice. Thankyou. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 05:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Aussie ==

Thanks for the user box. Errr, I think...

"one of the most bias free and politically incorrect countries in the world"—really? Are you fair dinkum about that? Because I don't agree, and reckon that's a furphy, although I don't want to start a blue over it. And as for labels, what about "skip"?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:haha no worries - and nah i'm just joshing re bias free. a bit of a self referential joke. In fact i think i'll remove it and incorporate some of your ideas. Cheers! [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 06:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==Probation==

Consider yourself on probation. You did not explain your rationale for the template; you merely repeated its wording. I want to know (1) why we need such a template, (2) how you intend to use it, and (3) what effects you predict it will have.

I suspect it could have a harmful effect, so the [[burden of proof]] is on you. You must justify the template, or I will delete it.

Also, your 'stubby' article is so badly written it smacks of being a parody calculated to tarnish this project's image. I move it to [[cup sleeve]].

Don't start any more articles without first proposing them and getting sysop permission. You may, however, improve articles you have already started. Do not comment on anyone else's work, and do not leave messages on other user's talk pages - except to ask help from sysops.

I like to see young people make positive contributions to the world, and I think you can do so if you try. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:This deletion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ilikebigbibles/Cup_sleeve&diff=prev&oldid=72111] leaves you nothing to work on. I've deleted the vandalism template.

:Any plans? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'LL prob go on a vandalism spree.

:::Hey me old cobber, don't let the [[liberal]]s harass you into losing control. Crack open a nice cold amber and have a read of the good old [[King James Bible|KJV]].
::::"For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." (Hebrews 10:36)
:::[[User:JC|JC]]

User talk:Ilikebigbibles

2007-03-27T13:35:21Z

JC: I like the KJV too.

Shrimp

2007-03-27T12:32:37Z

JC: Rv. vandalism by Jaques

[[Image:Facebook picture of fish.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Shrimp make good pets, and they get along well with [[Betta fish]], which also make fine pets.]]Shrimp are crustaceans.

The Bible says, "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:9-12)

Christians of various sects disagree on to what extent Levitical law on this matter should be followed. Some feel that, following Matthew 15:11 ("What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "), all dietary restrictions are no longer required.

[[Category: Abominations]]

Shellfish

2007-03-27T12:31:52Z

JC: Rv. vandalism by Jaques

Drugs

2007-03-27T11:42:36Z

JC: copyedit

A drug is a is a substance which has an effect on the body or mind. This may be a positive effect in the case of medicines or negative as is the case with most illegal drugs.
==Illegal drugs==
Illegal drugs are substances that can potentially cause damage to a person's [[brain]] and other organs. There is much debate over the legalization of drugs, people on both ends of the political spectrum are advocating for some drugs to be legalized while others on both ends are advocating for tougher penalties for possession of drugs. Some new age [[hippies]] believe drugs can separate one's body from one's soul, and native Americans believe drugs allow one to talk to trees; these are generally believed to be delusions caused by drugs' interference with neuro-activities in the brain.

Those in favour of legalising drugs often argue that the negative social consequences, including gang warfare and the permiation of dangerously impure substances, are more to do with their prohibition than the drugs themselves. Indeed, before the criminalisation of heroin in the UK it was no more than a trivial medical problem <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm</ref>. Opponents of criminalisation also point to the [[Prohibition]] experiment in the USA, where the illegality of alchohol caused problems of gang warfare and unsupervised distilleries that made worse the very problem that prohibition was intended to solve.

==Legal recreational drugs==
A small number of gateway drugs are legally tolerated in Western democracies. These include [[alcohol]], [[nicotine]] and [[caffeine]].

==References==
<references/>

User talk:Horace/List of suspected communist moles

2007-03-27T11:36:00Z

JC: Keep an eye on...

Dear Horace, [[User:CWilson|CWilson]] may be a communist mole. I suggest you keep a watch on him.
:"Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;" (Hebrews 12:15)
[[User:JC|JC]] 07:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Astrology

2007-03-26T13:13:56Z

JC: sp.

Astrologists use their knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details to understand, interpret, and organize information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer. Astrologers also use the traditional tools of science to show that the scientific evidence is consistent with their understanding and interpretation of the heavens and its effect on human affairs<ref>http://www.cyberastro.com/articles/article3.asp</ref>.

The Bible<ref>http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen13.html</ref> makes many references to astrology:

:''And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;'' (Luke 21:25)

:''The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,'' (Psalm 19:1-4)

[[Category:Astrology]]

Emu

2007-03-26T13:03:45Z

JC: origins

'''Emus''' are large flightless birds similar to small ostrichs. Emus are native to Australia where they eat seeds, bugs, and shrubs.

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], emus, like all flightless non aquatic birds, originated in the [[Middle East]] and are the descendants of the two emus that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]].
Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, emus bred from the Ark passengers then migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ag1">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Answers In Genesis</ref> -- as it is thought that Australia was still for a time after the Flood connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ag1"/>
The theory that God simply generated emus into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

[[Category:Birds]]

Chicken

2007-03-26T12:49:08Z

JC: Biblical chickens

A chicken is a [[bird]] that is commonly domesticated for [[food]]. Chickens are one of the few birds that cannot fly. Other notable exceptions include the [[emu]] and the [[penguin]]. Chickens lay [[egg]]s. Unlike other creatures, chickens are able to survive for some time without their heads. One even managed to do so for 18 Months<ref>http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/</ref>.
Chickens are mentioned in the Bible:
:''O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!'' (Matthew 23:37)

Chicken

2007-03-26T12:43:51Z

JC: survival

Astrology

2007-03-26T12:31:45Z

JC: Yea, but they use scientific tools like Creation scientists

Astrologists use their knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details to understand, interpret, and organize information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer. Astrologer also use the traditional tools of science to show that the scientific evidence is consistent with their understanding and interpretation of the heavens and its effect on human affairs<ref>http://www.cyberastro.com/articles/article3.asp</ref>.

The Bible<ref>http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen13.html</ref> makes many references to astrology:

:''And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;'' (Luke 21:25)

:''The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,'' (Psalm 19:1-4)

[[Category:Astrology]]

Category:Astrology

2007-03-26T12:28:49Z

JC: Descr.

Things to do with [[astrology]].

Astrology

2007-03-26T12:28:10Z

JC: Cat.

Mars

2007-03-26T12:27:09Z

JC: Cat.

'''Mars''' is the third planet from the [[Sun]], after [[Mercury]] and [[Venus]]. It is called "The Red Planet" because it looks red from Earth.

Mars was known to the antiquities; the Romans even named one of their gods — [[Ares|Mars, the god of war]] — after it. The Romans also knew about Jupiter and Saturn, but it was not until the 17th century that [[William Herschel]] discovered [[Uranus]], and [[Neptune]] and [[Pluto]] took even longer.

Mars has two moons: Phobos and Deimos. Russian scientists in the 1950s posited that Phobos might be hollow, but these claims were discredited in the late 1960s.

Recent satellite imagery has shown that Mars has a 3 kilometer deep ice cap around its southern polar region.

[[Category:Planets]][[Category:Astrology]]

Uranus

2007-03-26T12:26:41Z

JC: Cat.

'''Uranus''' is the seventh planet in the Solar System. Uranus was discovered by the English astronomer [[William Herschel]] in 1781. It was originally named "Georgium Sidis," or "George's Planet," in honor of King George III of England. The name was later changed and named after the ancient Greek god of the heavens who was the father of [[Saturn]] (Chronos) and grandfather of [[Jupiter]] (Zeus). Uranus has twenty one moons, including Miranda, Circe, Puck, Baltar, Spungo, and Tybalt. Most of the moons of Uranus have names drawn from the works of [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]].
[[Category:Planets]][[Category:Astrology]]

Saturn

2007-03-26T12:26:15Z

JC: Cat.

'''Saturn''' is the sixth planet in the [[Solar System]]. Its orbit lies between the orbits of [[Jupiter]] and [[Uranus]]. Saturn is a gas giant, and is famous for its large, complex system of rings. The rings are composed of thousands of rocks made of ices of various chemical compounds, including methane, hexane, and ammonia.

Saturn is named for the father of [[Jupiter]], the king of the gods. His father was [[Uranus]].

Saturn has approximately 60 moons, including [[Titan (Moon)|Titan]], which was long believed to be the largest moon in the Solar System. Its other moons include Tethys, Mimas, Dione, Baleet, Phoebe, Phah, and Iapetus.

Saturn was known to ancient astronomers, as it was visible to the naked eye. In [[Mesopotamia]], Saturn was known as Mulanna, or "The Goat."
[[Category:Planets]][[Category:Astrology]]

Mercury

2007-03-26T12:25:45Z

JC: Cat.

''This is about the planet Mercury. For information about the chemical element Mercury see [[Mercury (element)]].''

[[Mercury]] is the smallest planet in the [[Solar System]], and it is the closest to the [[Sun]]. It orbits the [[Sun]] in 88 days. It rotates on its axis every 58.6 days,<ref>"The theory that Mercury is in [[synchronous rotation]] with its orbital motion was shattered in 1965. Astronomers Gordon Pettengill and Rolf Dyce used a radio telescope to make radar observations of Mercury’s spin rate. They found that Mercury’s rotation period is only 58.6 Earth days, not the 88 days accepted for nearly a century." [http://btc.montana.edu/messenger/elusive_planet/modern_times.htm]</ref> which is 3 rotations for every two orbits (called "3:2 resonance"). It can be seen from [[Earth]] only at sunrise and sunset. It is named for the Roman messenger god who was known as [[Hermes]] in Greek.

It was the study of this planet's orbit that [[Albert Einstein]] used to help confirm the theory of General Relativity.[cite reference]

[[Category:Planets]][[Category:Astrology]]

Jupiter

2007-03-26T12:25:08Z

JC: Cat.

'''Jupiter''' is one of the [[planet]]s. It is named for the highest deity in the Roman pantheon.

Jupiter is conspicuous and easy to recognize when you know what to look for, and is the most interesting planet to view through binoculars. It is not so bright as to instantly draw attention, but it is a good deal brighter than the brightest star. It is in fact the fourth brightest object in the sky (the others being the Sun, the Moon, and the planet [[Venus]]). Jupiter is not only brighter than any star, it also shines more steadily. Jupiter is visible in the sky about half the time, and is often high up and clear of surrounding houses and trees.

As of February, 2007, Jupiter is visible in the eastern sky before sunrise, and even in the early stages of dawn.

Through any pair of "real" binoculars (any binoculars that an adult uses for birding or hunting will do; they should be at least 7 power; a "spotting scope" is even better), you can see that Jupiter is not a star, but shows as a tiny round circle; astronomers say it has a visible "disc." Jupiter through binoculars looks about 1/5 the size as the Moon looks ''without'' binoculars. You can't see any of the dramatic markings that you see in photographs made by astronomers, but you can see that it is a round dot.

The exciting thing about Jupiter is that usually you will see two, three, or four little "stars" near it that are all lined up in a straight line, with each other, and with Jupiter. If you watch it night after night, these "stars" will change their position relative to Jupiter, but you almost always will see several of them and they will always be lined up. These are four of the satellites of Jupiter.
[[Category:Planets]][[Category:Astrology]]

Venus

2007-03-26T12:24:49Z

JC: Cat.

[[Image:Transit2004.jpg|thumb|right|240px|Venus silhouetted against the Sun during one of the rare transits of Venus, 6/8/2004]]
'''Venus''' is one of the [[planet]]s and is named for [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]] the Roman goddess of love.

When the planet is visible, it is the brightest, most conspicuous, and easiest to recognize of all the planets.

When Venus is the "evening star," It shines brightly in the West in the hours after sunset. It is visible long before the sky is dark enough to see any other star, and when people "wish upon a star" very often they are actually wishing upon Venus. You can see it shining through a window in a lit room, just like the "wishing star" in the opening of Walt Disney's animated cartoon, ''Pinocchio."

Astronomy books sometimes claim that "planets do not twinkle." This is not quite true, but Venus in particular does shine with a steadier light than any star. When looking at Venus, it is quite possible to wonder whether one is looking at a plane, until one has watched for long enough to be sure that it is not moving (or, at least, not moving quickly enough to notice).

Venus alternates back and forth between being the "evening star" and the "morning star." As the evening star, it sets in the West after the sun does. As the morning star, it rises in the East before the sun does. In between, it rises and sets at about the same time as the Sun and is lost in the sun's glare. [[Pythagoras]] is traditionally recorded as the person who realized that both the evening star and the morning star were the same object.

Through a small telescope—binoculars will not do, but any real astronomical telescope will—it is possible to see that Venus often does not appear round, but goes through phases like the Moon, depending on how the light of the Sun strikes it.

About every two years, Venus "catches up with" and passes the Earth as they both orbit the Sun. This is called a "conjunction" of Venus and the Earth. During a conjunction, Venus is almost directly between the Earth and the Sun. It would seem as if Venus could be seen silhouetted against the Sun on every conjunction, but in fact the orbits of the planets are slightly tilted with respect to each other, so at a conjunction Venus almost never lines up perfectly, but appears to pass above or below the Sun. Very rarely—at intervals of over a century—conjunction occurs at the point in the orbits where they are both in the same plane. When this occurs, a ''transit of Venus'' can be observed. Transits of Venus occur in pairs, eight years apart; then over a century passes before the next one.

One of the rare transits of Venus occurred on June 8, 2004; another will occur on June 6, 2012; then there will be no more until 2117, probably not within the lifetime of those reading this. A transit of Venus cannot be seen with the naked eye. Observing a transit of Venus requires '''great attention to eye safety''' and a telescope ''equipped with a safe sun filter'' or a special transit viewer.

The planet Venus is about the same size as the Earth. Before explorations made by spacecraft made it clear just how harsh conditions on Venus are, science-fiction writers used to speculate that the temperature and climate of Venus might be within the range of life as we know it on Earth. Many science-fiction stories have been set on Venus. [[C. S. Lewis]]' novel ''Perelandra'' which takes place on Venus, and is a retelling of the story of the Garden of Eden.

==External links==
*[http://www.transitofvenus.org/ TransitofVenus.org], website about the upcoming 2012 transit

[[Category:Planets]] [[Category:Astrology]]

Astrology

2007-03-26T12:23:06Z

JC: Start.

Astrologists use their knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details to understand, interpret, and organize information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer. Astrologers, like [[Creation scientist]]s, use the traditional tools of science to show that the scientific evidence is consistent with their understanding and interpretation of the heavens and its effect on human affairs<ref>http://www.cyberastro.com/articles/article3.asp</ref>.

The Bible<ref>http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen13.html</ref> makes many references to astrology:

:''And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;'' (Luke 21:25)

:''The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,'' (Psalm 19:1-4)

Duck

2007-03-26T11:47:12Z

JC: procreation

A '''duck''' is a [[bird]]. Unlike many other animals it can walk on the land, swim in the water, and fly in the air. Female ducks lay [[egg]]s.

[[Category:Birds]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-24T19:18:51Z

JC: /* Palestinian people on Wikipedia */ John 8:45

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

==Unfair Bias at Conservapedia==
I'm an American and a Conservative, and although I have realized that articles that are subject to heavy debate have a hard time being totally unbiased, a lot of what Conservapedia says about them is totally unfair, and very biased.

An article with noticeable bias at Wikipedia is the article on [[Intelligent Design]], other ones, especially with reference to politics or religion tend to have some bias as well, even if it's hidden a bit more. In a lot of ways that makes sense-considering that biased people wrote it it's basically impossible to have an article without bias. [[Conservapedia]] doesn't even try.

The articles that Conservapedia does complain about are for the most part very small things, mostly things that aren't even there anymore--in a free open content, wiki dictionary like Wikipedia mistakes can be made by anybody, and corrected by anybody, a system that works very well--as can be seen by Conservapedia copying that system.

==The center of the world==

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans.
[[User:Proutgirl|Proutgirl]] 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The Wikipedia article "Palestinian people" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people] perhaps doesn't mention "terrorism" because the "Palestinian people" aren't "terrorists" per se. That would be like saying an article on the American people is biased because it doesn't mention "mass murderers" because of, for example, "[[Charles Manson]]". If one follows the Wikpedia link to the "Palestine Liberation Organization" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization] it is mentioned that they are thought to be "the richest of all terrorist organizations".
:::One needn't be to be a rocket scientist to notice how silly some of these examples of bias in Wikipedia are.
:::They make us Conservatives look like nutjobs.
::::"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." (John 8:45)
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 15:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== This is hilarious. ==

:'Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal"'.
:'About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.'
:'Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public.'
:'Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.'
:'even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[33] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.'
All very true. However, it's rather weird then to go on to quote - apparently as a further attack on Wikipedia - the fact that
:''One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined.
Since, ''as Conservapedia acknowledges here'', truth is not democratically determined, how is it relevant what percentage of Americans believe in evolution or Noah's Ark?

Liberal

2007-03-24T18:58:17Z

JC: Death rituals

'''''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States to characterize the following set of beliefs:

* In favor of gun control
* Supports a woman's right to choose if she wants an abortion
* prohibiting organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* Classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* Private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theory_of_economics]
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a so-called "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*Income redistribution, with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* Burial or cremation of the dead.

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Rapture

2007-03-24T16:55:50Z

JC: Removed potty claims. See talk.

The Rapture (first proposed by the British preacher John Nelson Darby in the mid-19th century) is believed by some Christians to be an event that will take place sometime in the near future. Jesus will come in the air, gather up the Church from the earth, and then return to Heaven with the Church.<ref>1 Thessalonians 4:13-18</ref>

Some evangelical commentators suggest that the following events need to occur for the Rapture to take place:
* The countries of the world must have the same currency.
* Peace in [[Israel]]<ref>Ezekiel 38</ref>
* One World Government, like the Revelation 7th beast.
* Jerusalem must rebuild the Jewish temple.
* The Jewish people must control Israel.
* The [[Antichrist]] must be walking the earth in human form.

The website 'Rapture Ready'<ref>[http://http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html Rapture Ready]</ref> maintains an index of how close we are claimed to be to the Rapture.

Once these conditions have been met, and a [[Red Heifer]] has been sacrificed in the [[Temple of Solomon]], [[Cthulhu|Jesus]] will rise once again to wipe away the sinful world and reward all the faithful.

There is some debate in such circles over whether the Rapture will occur before, during or after the reign of the [[Antichrist]], but the original reference by St Paul to the faithful being 'caught up into the clouds' at I Thessalonians 4:17 clearly dates it to the time of the Second Coming, and does not suggest in any way that it will result in Christians being spared in advance the horrors of the Last Times, as is sometimes proposed.

* [[Premillennial Dispensationalism]]<ref>[http://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/ChristianMedia/prophecy_premdisp.html]</ref>
* [[Postmillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Midmillennial Dispensationalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Armstrong, K., ''The Battle for God'' (Harper Perennial, 2000)
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:American Indians

2007-03-24T14:53:47Z

JC: Political correctness?

Now that [[political correctness]] is apparently acceptable on Conservapedia (see [[Talk:African Americans]]) oughtn't this page be called [[Native Americans]]?
:"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:" (Leviticus 18:24)
[[User:JC|JC]] 10:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)