Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:JDWpianist

2014-08-01T20:15:00Z

JDWpianist: Blanked the page

User:JDWpianist

2012-06-20T21:31:14Z

JDWpianist: personal update

{{userboxtop|JDWpianist, editor}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{Userbox|red|white|MT-g+ |This user is a [[music theory]] geek.}}
{{Userbox|brown|white|MH-g+ |This user is a music history geek.}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Stieler_Portrait_Ludwig_van_Beethoven.jpg|45px]]|'''This user wrote his dissertation on [[Beethoven]]. You can ask him anything!'''}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Johann_Bach.jpg|45px]]|'''This user plays [[Bach|Bach's]] [[Well-Tempered Clavier]] daily'''<ref>That's not an exaggeration either!</ref>.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

'''''That's Dr. JDWpianist to you!'''''

Hello everyone! I'm a classical musician, teacher, and musicologist living in [[Vienna]], [[Austria]]. I'm happy to be here, making contributions to topics in which I have a special interest:

*'''[[Music]]''' (Composers, [[Piano]], [[Orchestra]], String Quartet, [[Opera]], Choral Music, Music Theory, Music History, Orchestration, Musical Semiotics, Ethnomusicology, Hymnology, [[Jazz]], [[Rock music|Rock]])

*'''[[Austria]]n culture, history, and politics'''

*'''[[Vienna]]'''! An astounding place.

*'''[[German language]]'''

*'''[[Southern Baptist Convention|Southern Baptist]] culture and history'''

If you have any suggestions or substantial issues with my edits, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to discuss them. And if I ever don't reply or edit for a few days, it means that I've stopped procrastinating.

The principles behind my writing and edits are simple: truth, clarity, verifiability, and reasonableness.

[[/JDW's unsolicited input on blocking policy|My unsolicited input on blocking policy]]

[[/Sandbox|My Sandbox]]

==Leo Treitler on certainty and truth==
{{cquote|It is not at all necessarily the same to be certain of something as it is to regard something as being true. There are all sorts of things--matters of fact or feeling or action--about which we may be certain although they may not be judged either true or false. That is mainly because our judgements about them are contingent upon our experience and present circumstance, while true propositions are those that we expect to hold in all circumstances.}}
"The Power of Positivist Thinking" (1989)

==[[Mozart]]'s ''[[Die Zauberflöte]]'', or The Magic Flute==
Here's a fantastic Youtube clip of the "Three Boys" from Mozart's Magic Flute. In one of the great paeans to [[The Enlightenment]], the three boys in this opera (technically a ''Singspiel'') sing about a peaceful future free of superstition and ruled by reason. It's a shame that 200 years later, we're still not there yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1km_1_SDVU

This clip is from a legendary 1983 performance by the [[Munich]] opera, with the incomparable Lucia Popp singing the role of Pamina.

Opening Text: 
''Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden'' 
''Die Sonn' auf goldner Bahn.'' 
''Bald soll der Aberglaube schwinden,'' 
''Bald siegt der weise Mann.'' 
''O, holde Ruhe, steig hernieder,'' 
''Kehr in der Menschen Herzen wieder;'' 
''Dann ist die Erd' ein Himmelreich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich.'' 

Soon, heralding the morning 
The sun will shine forth on its golden path. 
Soon superstition shall vanish, 
Soon the wise man shall triumph. 
O sweet repose, descend, 
Return to the hearts of men; 
Then Earth will be a realm of Heaven, 
And mortals will be like Gods, 
And mortals will be like Gods.

After this introduction, they encounter Pamina, who is on the verge of suicide. They reproach her for this unnatural and immoral act, and convince her to go with them to see her lover Tamino.

==A Word to Students about Wikis==
It is my sincere belief that students who follow the links on this website are already showing a great deal of curiosity. A wiki article can be a good place to satisfy one's desire to learn, but in this editor's opinion is even better as a jumping-off point for further learning.

The reason why an encyclopedia requires sources, and why wiki administrators ideally are very strict about requiring footnotes and extensive bibliographies, is not only to prove that the information is verifiable, but to give the reader a hint as to where more detailed information can be obtained. It is even more ideal if the sources point to books, where a subject can be learned about in depth.

It is both a blessing and a curse that the internet has allowed the curious such quick ways as wikis to read an overview of a given subject. Before these wikis became popular, one needed to go to a library, open an encyclopedia, and then follow the references to other books in the library. This method took much more time than doing an internet search, but the advantage was that the books mentioned in encyclopedia articles were often close at hand in the library, and once one had found a desired book in a particular section of the bookshelves, there were often several related books in the same area. Of course all of this would be too much for the student to take in in one day, but they would know where to look if further research was ever necessary.

Compare this with a wiki, where an article can typically be longer than one in a bound encyclopedia. It's possible to completely satisfy one's curiosity in around ten minutes. The problem is, it gives the illusion of completeness. One needn't go to find books on the subject, because the article seems to say it all at first glance, whereas the library method lets a student know that any subject has a great wealth of information written about it.

As an editor here at Conservapedia, I do my best within my area of expertise to give a reliable ''summary'' of the scholarship on a particular topic, a good entry point for a student who is curious to learn more. I must emphasize though, that all wikis are inadequate: they oversimplify, they contain bias, and there's a great possibility that they contain errors. This is why following the sources is always a good idea. A book on a subject, or a more specialized encyclopedia, will most likely be written by an expert, who has spent his or her life studying the topic they have written about. As with any human, the writer will also have biases, but a bias based on an in-depth knowledge of the subject is preferable to an ideological bias that imposes an oversimplified worldview on every subject they opine on.

An expert can tell you exactly where their knowledge begins and ends, but the ideologue will proclaim himself an expert on everything. The ideologue proves his simplified view of the world with circular logic, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his view as irrelevant. About this kind of person, Geoffery Chaucer had already understood and deflated their arrogance over 600 years ago. Out of the whole cast of ''Canterbury Tales'', he perhaps reserves the most scorn for the character of the Monk, of whom he writes, "And I said his opinion was right; why should he study and lose his wits ever poring over a book in the cloister, or toil with his hands and labor as St. Augustine bids?" <ref>translation by Gerard NeCastro http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/translation/ct/01gp.html</ref> In other words, the Monk did not need to read a book, because he was already correct in thought; he did not need to waste his time fulfilling the church's commandment to do good works and give to charity, because he was already correct in deed.

In summary, don't forget that the brick-and-mortar library is still the ideal place to learn, and that whatever can be found on the internet is still only a tiny fraction of what is out there. Let your curiosity be your guide, and most of all, do not put all of your trust in one website for information.

==References==
{{reflist}}

User talk:JDWpianist

2011-08-16T07:21:40Z

JDWpianist: /* re: panel */

{{Welcome}} [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 17:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:17, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Hi, welcome to CP, I'd reccomend writing something on your userpage in order to give you a blue name! [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 18:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip. There's something preliminary there now. I hope to add more later. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Welcome to Conservapedia! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:15, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

: What are the images you need? You may use also [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:09, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the tip, and a belated thanks for the welcome! I happen to have a lot of musical examples for basic music theory, which I created on Sibelius notation software while I was a Teaching Assistant. I'll use the image upload request.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:35, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== And now? ==

[[Vienna]], thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:40, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:The new gallery looks great! And that's definitely the Stephansdom I know and love -- though the renovation on the tower finished very recently and it's looking even better now. You know, for Maundy Thursday, they pealed the bells at 7 p.m., it's a haunting, ancient sound.
:I was inspired by your additions to flesh out the article a lot more. Hope you enjoy it. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks again and [[Godspeed]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:10, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Featured articles ==

Any proposal for new articles?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:01, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

: Thank you for your reply. We have material for a month; may be you will have then finished some articles to include. [[Godspeed]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:04, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Clarinet]]==

Who first called it a 'licorice stick'? And what is the role of the clarinet in the [[big bands]] of the [[Big Band Era]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:24, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

:I think the "licorice stick" epithet came around just as big bands were becoming popular, in the '30s, though it's not clear if it can be traced to any one person. The clarinet was a big deal much earlier in New Orleans Jazz, where it played a mostly [[obbligato]] role (see also the page on [[heterophony]]). This role kind of morphed over into Big Band Jazz, where as a solo instrument it played lots of decoration over the main melody. The great soloists like [[Benny Goodman]] of course had a big part in shaping that. Later into the 40's, Ellington and Count Basie wrote some pieces with whole clarinet ensembles instead of saxophones, which gave it a special moody character.

Hope that helps. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:34, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

:Yes. Next question: What do you call the kind of [[broken chord]] which is indicated by a wavy line to the left of the notes? And how do you distinguish that from the typical arpeggio which is written out in, say, eighth notes (or as Bach did with the Well-Tempered Clavier Prelude #1, sixteenth notes)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:20, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

::They're actually both called [[arpeggio]]s technically, but the wavy line is usually just called a roll (or rolled chord). Practically there aren't many situations where the two usages can be confused. I personally call an arpeggio with a distinct rhythm (like the Bach) a broken chord. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:28, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

== The Nozze di Figaro Anonymous watercolour. ==

Done.

Greetings.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

==Morality and ethics==

Can you help me distinguish between [[morality]] and [[ethics]]? I mean, not me personally ... let's write some articles together. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:(replying here, as your talk page is locked) I'd be happy to do what I can, for what a musician's opinion is worth. I've moved our discussion around a little, since it was traversing many topics unrlated to Mulan. The relevant part is on [[Talk:Occult]], and the whole thing, including my reply, is now on [[Talk:Ethics]]. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:19, 21 January 2010 (EST)

==[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]==

Hi, JDW. I have a question about something you said last month:
* too much polar ice will melt and raise the ocean levels

Were you referring just to [[sea ice]], i.e., floating on the ocean - or to all ice at pole(s) including that on land? Recall that when an iceberg melts it has hardly any effect on sea level. One kilogram of ice displaces one liter of fresh water, and just about the same amount of salt water. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:That comment was a response to a picture that Jpatt uploaded, which showed that this year's temperatures for most of the globe were colder than the average of the previous 8 years. The one surprising exception was the polar ice caps, whose temperatures were clearly warmer this year than the average.

:So yes, the segment you just quoted was my understanding of the typical global warming argument, which seems to say that higher temperatures at the poles means a faster increase in sea levels. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding their position, but what I always hear from climatologists in the press is that polar temperatures are their main worry. Maybe you're right -- and I certainly hope that you are -- that polar ice melting would have little effect on sea level. I'm not qualified to judge the facts, but I do attempt to understand both sides, so as not to be duped by propaganda and misinformation. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 13:02, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::You mean like Phil Jones admitting to the [[BBC]] that there hasn't really been any "[[global warming]]" whatsoever in the past 15 years? [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/] That kind of being duped? Or the kind of misinformation like the southern pole rapidly losing ice, but that studies show is rapidly gaining ice in most areas other than the Ross shelf? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Hey, TK, go easy on my fellow musician! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:59, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:I will be certain not to confuse other users with the facts, Professor Poor! But I do enjoy music of all kinds! ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Thanks for the link, TK, but to be fair one should compare that article with Jones' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm original BBC interview], and decide for themselves which is more convincing. But I didn't come here to debate climate change, merely to answer EdPoor's question about what I meant on a talk page last month.

::If you're as interested in music as I am writing musical articles, keep your eyes peeled for a couple of new ones in the coming weeks - I'm studying for oral exams, and plan to upload the results of my recent reading for the edification of CP's target audience. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:53, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== Mannheim rocket ==

That made my day. When I saw your reference to the "Mannheim rocket" this afternoon, I wondered what it could possibly be. I knew that Mozart admired the Mannheim orchestra, and in particular their use of clarinets. Then you put up the example. The G minor symphony!! '''That''' was an example of the Mannheim rocket! Awesome.

Best wishes on Chopin's birthday. (Though I have to admit he's not among my favorite composers. I'm still on a high from January 27th.)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:00, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for the message. It's nice to know that other users are learning from my contributions! You're right, these concepts need musical examples in order to make sense, but once you know what they are, you see them all over the place in Mozart and Beethoven. I'll be adding a couple more examples in the next day or so.

:Yeah, I'm more a fan of Viennese classics myself, but as a pianist have a special relationship with Chopin. You ought to give some of his more sophisticated works a listen though, like the F-Minor Fantasy or the Ballades. The Fantasie-Polonaise is also great. I find that people who love Mozart usually come around to have an appreciation for Chopin as well, as they're similar in more ways than it seems at first. At any rate, yesterday was an important milestone, definitely deserving of a more fleshed-out article here than there was before.

:Thanks again for the encouraging comment, and all the best.

[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:31, 2 March 2010 (EST)

== Lost page ==

Saw that you had rewritten my edit on the Lost page regarding to its plot. I think your rewrite is much better than what I wrote. It reads very well now. {{unsigned|ConservaPeter}}

:Thanks, I understood your edit, because the way it was before did sound a little negative. But believe it or not, I meant it originally as a compliment. Your comment made me realize that it wasn't coming off that way, so I re-wrote it to keep the idea that the loss of viewers has something to do with the show's complexity, but that the ones who've stuck with it are very devoted.

:At any rate, what do you think of Season 6 so far? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:49, 8 March 2010 (EST)

:I like it! I've yet to see a bad episode, including all previous seasons. It's gonna be fun to get some answers to questions like who "Adam and Eve" are and what exactly the alternate timeline is all about.

== Hopefully... ==

Your decision to take a wiki-break will be short. Spirited discourse often leads to intemperate discourse and decisions, but fortunately we usually rise about that ultimately. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

==... within reason==

Reason and faith can co-exist, trust me. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:41, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

==Socratic==

Thanks for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Phaedo&curid=77506&diff=851969&oldid=701255&rcid=1042584 this little fix]. I was beginning to think no one from the old gang would ever come back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:Happy to oblige, especially since it's my old mistakes I was fixing. I can't promise it will be a regular occurrence -- my doctoral adviser has informed me that I'm his last student and that he wants to retire in 2011, which means the pressure's on for me to finish. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:06, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== re: panel ==

I saw some of your recent remarks about CP blocking in relation to yourself. I also saw you have created a significant amount of content at CP. Could you explain your non-TK blocks in the past or all of your blocks if you feel so inclined (I was never a TK fan)? At best, I could lobby for you to be on the panel if you wish to be. No promises though as I don't want to cause needless controversy concerning the panel. Worst case scenario, the panel may look at your previous blocks as possible useful input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply. I appreciate being invited, but you don't need to create controversy on my account. That a few of the panel members read my comments is all I request. At any rate, I'm headed out of the country to visit in-laws later today, and will not likely be online while your panel is underway.

:To answer your question about blocks, the most recent one was by a parodist (JacobB). Whatever prompted it has disappeared from my logs, but the "personal remarks" JacobB referenced probably had something to do with me ribbing his buddy TK about the "socialist sport" comments he had made during the World Cup, and moreover was undone 30 minutes later without my asking. Nothing earth-shattering.

:As for the other blocks, I'll briefly describe them here. One I'll admit to being deserved, both are very instructive as to what's keeping good-faith editors away from here:

:''14:58, 17 April 2009 DeanS (Talk | contribs) blocked JDWpianist (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Negative personal comments: Andy's talk page)''
:*When a very good user (over 1000 useful edits and many pages created) and friend of mine, AlanE, was insulted by Andy for having made "no significant contribution" to the site, he understandably got angry and wrote a stinging Parthian on the way out. I got angry too, and mouthed off at Andy myself, saying (with some measure of incivility) that if one can't keep a good user like AlanE on the site, then there's no hope -- funny how the same theme keeps recurring...

:''18:09, 16 March 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs) unblocked JDWpianist (Talk | contribs) ‎ (user request, as per email)''
:''17:22, 16 March 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked JDWpianist (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Use of foreign ISP as proxy mask: Chello Broadband GmbH, Vienna, Austria (chello062178038065.13.11.vie.surfer.at); sock of Wilsher)''
:*This block happened the day I showed up, before making any single edit. Karajou apparently assumed that there were no valid users wanting to edit from Vienna, and so I clearly must have been a sock of the last guy who tried to edit from Vienna. Had I been the easily-dissuaded type, I would have just given up. But I sent an e-mail to Karajou saying, "I don't know who this guy Wilsher is, but I'd like to edit the site." After a suspicious reply, something to the effect "Well, okay, but I'm going to be watching you like a hawk!", Karajou was kind enough to "allow" me to edit the site. This is the kind of treatment that I think is counter-productive to having good editors here. I think that for most good faith users, being blocked right away, no questions asked, and then having your e-mail replied to grudgingly, sends the clear message "we don't want you here." You are all so focused on eliminating the threat of bad-faith users and vandals, but you don't realize that it's your draconian policies which are encouraging them.

:A further word or two about TK: now that he's dead, the CP sysops are happy to disown him and everything he did, but don't forget that when he was still active, your honor code ("never question another sysop's block") made sure that he was able to do whatever he wanted unchecked. If he didn't like someone, he had a habit of sending abusive e-mails; any appeal I made to other sysops was met with silence and inaction. Like it or not, CP's policies, which are designed with the sole purpose of giving sysops free reign to fight vandalism as they please and contain no recourse or review for unfairly-blocked users other than begging and grovelling to the one who blocked them, make it easy for the TK's of the world to set up their own fiefdoms here and get their jollies through harassing and bullying others. There have been by my count at least two other "mini-TK's" since, and is probably one more right now.

:The bottom line is, there needs to be a sea change in how sysops view their role. I don't deny that you have a problem with vandalism, but sysops shouldn't forget that the first goal should be to keep good faith editors here and happy. If the policies are only engineered to make it easy for sysops to counteract vandals and alleged "parodists," then you're creating obstacles for the good-faith users which will usually cause them to give up and contribute elsewhere, and by extension making sure that the only users wishing to jump those hurdles are people who secretly hate the site and wish it harm. Clear rules are needed, which the sysops must follow as well as the regular users. Transparency and fairness are a must. Wikipedia's "assume good faith" and "don't bite the newbie" policies are a fantastic guide for working with new users.

:Cheers, [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 03:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:JDWpianist

2011-08-16T07:09:46Z

JDWpianist: /* re: panel */

{{Welcome}} [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 17:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:17, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Hi, welcome to CP, I'd reccomend writing something on your userpage in order to give you a blue name! [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 18:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip. There's something preliminary there now. I hope to add more later. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Welcome to Conservapedia! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:15, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

: What are the images you need? You may use also [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:09, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the tip, and a belated thanks for the welcome! I happen to have a lot of musical examples for basic music theory, which I created on Sibelius notation software while I was a Teaching Assistant. I'll use the image upload request.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:35, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== And now? ==

[[Vienna]], thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:40, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:The new gallery looks great! And that's definitely the Stephansdom I know and love -- though the renovation on the tower finished very recently and it's looking even better now. You know, for Maundy Thursday, they pealed the bells at 7 p.m., it's a haunting, ancient sound.
:I was inspired by your additions to flesh out the article a lot more. Hope you enjoy it. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks again and [[Godspeed]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:10, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Featured articles ==

Any proposal for new articles?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:01, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

: Thank you for your reply. We have material for a month; may be you will have then finished some articles to include. [[Godspeed]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:04, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Clarinet]]==

Who first called it a 'licorice stick'? And what is the role of the clarinet in the [[big bands]] of the [[Big Band Era]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:24, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

:I think the "licorice stick" epithet came around just as big bands were becoming popular, in the '30s, though it's not clear if it can be traced to any one person. The clarinet was a big deal much earlier in New Orleans Jazz, where it played a mostly [[obbligato]] role (see also the page on [[heterophony]]). This role kind of morphed over into Big Band Jazz, where as a solo instrument it played lots of decoration over the main melody. The great soloists like [[Benny Goodman]] of course had a big part in shaping that. Later into the 40's, Ellington and Count Basie wrote some pieces with whole clarinet ensembles instead of saxophones, which gave it a special moody character.

Hope that helps. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:34, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

:Yes. Next question: What do you call the kind of [[broken chord]] which is indicated by a wavy line to the left of the notes? And how do you distinguish that from the typical arpeggio which is written out in, say, eighth notes (or as Bach did with the Well-Tempered Clavier Prelude #1, sixteenth notes)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:20, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

::They're actually both called [[arpeggio]]s technically, but the wavy line is usually just called a roll (or rolled chord). Practically there aren't many situations where the two usages can be confused. I personally call an arpeggio with a distinct rhythm (like the Bach) a broken chord. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:28, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

== The Nozze di Figaro Anonymous watercolour. ==

Done.

Greetings.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

==Morality and ethics==

Can you help me distinguish between [[morality]] and [[ethics]]? I mean, not me personally ... let's write some articles together. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:(replying here, as your talk page is locked) I'd be happy to do what I can, for what a musician's opinion is worth. I've moved our discussion around a little, since it was traversing many topics unrlated to Mulan. The relevant part is on [[Talk:Occult]], and the whole thing, including my reply, is now on [[Talk:Ethics]]. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:19, 21 January 2010 (EST)

==[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]==

Hi, JDW. I have a question about something you said last month:
* too much polar ice will melt and raise the ocean levels

Were you referring just to [[sea ice]], i.e., floating on the ocean - or to all ice at pole(s) including that on land? Recall that when an iceberg melts it has hardly any effect on sea level. One kilogram of ice displaces one liter of fresh water, and just about the same amount of salt water. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:That comment was a response to a picture that Jpatt uploaded, which showed that this year's temperatures for most of the globe were colder than the average of the previous 8 years. The one surprising exception was the polar ice caps, whose temperatures were clearly warmer this year than the average.

:So yes, the segment you just quoted was my understanding of the typical global warming argument, which seems to say that higher temperatures at the poles means a faster increase in sea levels. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding their position, but what I always hear from climatologists in the press is that polar temperatures are their main worry. Maybe you're right -- and I certainly hope that you are -- that polar ice melting would have little effect on sea level. I'm not qualified to judge the facts, but I do attempt to understand both sides, so as not to be duped by propaganda and misinformation. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 13:02, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::You mean like Phil Jones admitting to the [[BBC]] that there hasn't really been any "[[global warming]]" whatsoever in the past 15 years? [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/] That kind of being duped? Or the kind of misinformation like the southern pole rapidly losing ice, but that studies show is rapidly gaining ice in most areas other than the Ross shelf? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Hey, TK, go easy on my fellow musician! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:59, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:I will be certain not to confuse other users with the facts, Professor Poor! But I do enjoy music of all kinds! ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Thanks for the link, TK, but to be fair one should compare that article with Jones' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm original BBC interview], and decide for themselves which is more convincing. But I didn't come here to debate climate change, merely to answer EdPoor's question about what I meant on a talk page last month.

::If you're as interested in music as I am writing musical articles, keep your eyes peeled for a couple of new ones in the coming weeks - I'm studying for oral exams, and plan to upload the results of my recent reading for the edification of CP's target audience. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:53, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== Mannheim rocket ==

That made my day. When I saw your reference to the "Mannheim rocket" this afternoon, I wondered what it could possibly be. I knew that Mozart admired the Mannheim orchestra, and in particular their use of clarinets. Then you put up the example. The G minor symphony!! '''That''' was an example of the Mannheim rocket! Awesome.

Best wishes on Chopin's birthday. (Though I have to admit he's not among my favorite composers. I'm still on a high from January 27th.)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:00, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for the message. It's nice to know that other users are learning from my contributions! You're right, these concepts need musical examples in order to make sense, but once you know what they are, you see them all over the place in Mozart and Beethoven. I'll be adding a couple more examples in the next day or so.

:Yeah, I'm more a fan of Viennese classics myself, but as a pianist have a special relationship with Chopin. You ought to give some of his more sophisticated works a listen though, like the F-Minor Fantasy or the Ballades. The Fantasie-Polonaise is also great. I find that people who love Mozart usually come around to have an appreciation for Chopin as well, as they're similar in more ways than it seems at first. At any rate, yesterday was an important milestone, definitely deserving of a more fleshed-out article here than there was before.

:Thanks again for the encouraging comment, and all the best.

[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:31, 2 March 2010 (EST)

== Lost page ==

Saw that you had rewritten my edit on the Lost page regarding to its plot. I think your rewrite is much better than what I wrote. It reads very well now. {{unsigned|ConservaPeter}}

:Thanks, I understood your edit, because the way it was before did sound a little negative. But believe it or not, I meant it originally as a compliment. Your comment made me realize that it wasn't coming off that way, so I re-wrote it to keep the idea that the loss of viewers has something to do with the show's complexity, but that the ones who've stuck with it are very devoted.

:At any rate, what do you think of Season 6 so far? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:49, 8 March 2010 (EST)

:I like it! I've yet to see a bad episode, including all previous seasons. It's gonna be fun to get some answers to questions like who "Adam and Eve" are and what exactly the alternate timeline is all about.

== Hopefully... ==

Your decision to take a wiki-break will be short. Spirited discourse often leads to intemperate discourse and decisions, but fortunately we usually rise about that ultimately. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

==... within reason==

Reason and faith can co-exist, trust me. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:41, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

==Socratic==

Thanks for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Phaedo&curid=77506&diff=851969&oldid=701255&rcid=1042584 this little fix]. I was beginning to think no one from the old gang would ever come back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:Happy to oblige, especially since it's my old mistakes I was fixing. I can't promise it will be a regular occurrence -- my doctoral adviser has informed me that I'm his last student and that he wants to retire in 2011, which means the pressure's on for me to finish. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:06, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== re: panel ==

I saw some of your recent remarks about CP blocking in relation to yourself. I also saw you have created a significant amount of content at CP. Could you explain your non-TK blocks in the past or all of your blocks if you feel so inclined (I was never a TK fan)? At best, I could lobby for you to be on the panel if you wish to be. No promises though as I don't want to cause needless controversy concerning the panel. Worst case scenario, the panel may look at your previous blocks as possible useful input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply. I appreciate being invited, but you don't need to create controversy on my account. That a few of the panel members read my comments is all I request. At any rate, I'm headed out of the country to visit in-laws later today, and will not likely be online while your panel is underway.

:To answer your question about blocks, the most recent one was by a parodist (JacobB). Whatever prompted it has disappeared from my logs, but the "personal remarks" JacobB referenced probably had something to do with me ribbing his buddy TK about the "socialist sport" comments he had made during the World Cup. Nothing earth-shattering.

:As for the other blocks, I'll briefly describe them here. One I'll admit to being deserved, both are very instructive as to what's keeping good-faith editors away from here:

:''14:58, 17 April 2009 DeanS (Talk | contribs) blocked JDWpianist (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Negative personal comments: Andy's talk page)''
:*When a very good user (over 1000 useful edits and many pages created) and friend of mine, AlanE, was insulted by Andy for having made "no significant contribution" to the site, he understandably got angry and wrote a stinging Parthian on the way out. I got angry too, and mouthed off at Andy myself, saying (with some measure of incivility) that if one can't keep a good user like AlanE on the site, then there's no hope -- funny how the same theme keeps recurring...

:''18:09, 16 March 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs) unblocked JDWpianist (Talk | contribs) ‎ (user request, as per email)''
:''17:22, 16 March 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked JDWpianist (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Use of foreign ISP as proxy mask: Chello Broadband GmbH, Vienna, Austria (chello062178038065.13.11.vie.surfer.at); sock of Wilsher)''
:*This block happened the day I showed up, before making any single edit. Karajou apparently assumed that there were no valid users wanting to edit from Vienna, and so I clearly must have been a sock of the last guy who tried to edit from Vienna. Had I been the easily-dissuaded type, I would have just given up. But I sent an e-mail to Karajou saying, "I don't know who this guy Wilsher is, but I'd like to edit the site." After a suspicious reply, something to the effect "Well, okay, but I'm going to be watching you like a hawk!", Karajou was kind enough to "allow" me to edit the site. This is the kind of treatment that I think is counter-productive to having good editors here. I think that for most good faith users, being blocked right away, no questions asked, and then having your e-mail replied to grudgingly, sends the clear message "we don't want you here." You are all so focused on eliminating the threat of bad-faith users and vandals, but you don't realize that it's your draconian policies which are encouraging them.

:A further word or two about TK: now that he's dead, the CP sysops are happy to disown him and everything he did, but don't forget that when he was still active, your honor code ("never question another sysop's block") made sure that he was able to do whatever he wanted unchecked. If he didn't like someone, he had a habit of sending abusive e-mails; any appeal I made to other sysops was met with silence and inaction. Like it or not, CP's policies, which are designed with the sole purpose of giving sysops free reign to fight vandalism as they please and contain no recourse or review for unfairly-blocked users other than begging and grovelling to the one who blocked them, make it easy for the TK's of the world to set up their own fiefdoms here and get their jollies through harassing and bullying others. There have been by my count at least two other "mini-TK's" since, and is probably one more right now.

:The bottom line is, there needs to be a sea change in how sysops view their role. I don't deny that you have a problem with vandalism, but sysops shouldn't forget that the first goal should be to keep good faith editors here and happy. If the policies are only engineered to make it easy for sysops to counteract vandals and alleged "parodists," then you're creating obstacles for the good-faith users which will usually cause them to give up and contribute elsewhere, and by extension making sure that the only users wishing to jump those hurdles are people who secretly hate the site and wish it harm. Clear rules are needed, which the sysops must follow as well as the regular users. Transparency and fairness are a must. Wikipedia's "assume good faith" and "don't bite the newbie" policies are a fantastic guide for working with new users.

:Cheers, [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 03:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

User:JDWpianist/JDW's unsolicited input on blocking policy

2011-08-15T20:30:31Z

JDWpianist: /* Narratio */ Eris is a more fitting name

==Exordium==
I realize that only admins and editors with blocking rights have been invited to weigh in about blocking policy reform. However, I thought that having been blocked several times -- a few of which I'll admit were justified -- and having lived through them all to become one of the only non-admin editors who's stayed around to watch a lot of editors come and go, I have a unique perspective on what Conservapedia could do to make more good users want to contribute.

Exodus tells us that when God had problems with the Israelites constantly sinning, he gave them a list of commandments to abide by. One might wonder why this was so. I would argue that one reason was this: without knowing what an authority expects of you, you don't necessarily feel freer, rather the opposite. The constant wondering what kind of offense might get you zapped creates a tension which can make a person feel subject to the whims of capricious authority figures, God in the case of my example. Why, for example, did God not smite Moses for murder after he killed the Egyptian, but the Israelites' complaining earned them 40 years' wandering in the wilderness? Was this fair? Was every single person on the face of the earth (even the kids?) wicked when God decided to send a flood to kill them all? A Christian or a Jew must assume that the God of Genesis and the fist 20 chapters of Exodus is the same one as after, so the problem wasn't that God was unfair, but that the people needed to be told what the law was.

What the Ten Commandments gave the Israelites was a clear blueprint for what it takes to live in favor with God. This was a great contrast to other ancient religions, like the Greeks for instance, who were never sure what action was favored by which god (see Plato's [[Euthyphro]]), and must have lived in constant fear of enraging some god or another.

==Narratio==
In my opinion, the problem with the way blocking is currently handled at Conservapedia is that it's more like the Ancient Greek system than the Hebrew covenant. There is a list somewhere of ostensible block reasons, but they're extremely subjective, and in practice the sysops each have their own personal likes and dislikes which may or may not be set off by a particular user's edits depending on the sysop's mood.
*One sysop, whom I'll call Hermes, likes to greet new users by saying "Welcome, I'd like you to write such and such article" and then bans the user for not agreeing.
*Another former one, whom I'll call Eris (question of gender aside), would constantly ban users who made no controversial edits, simply because he had a suspicion that they also edit at RWiki.
*There's also a Poseidon, who often appears to relish using his blocking powers as a form of intimidation, an "earth-shaking" if you will, and although he claims it's based on clear principles, it's more of an ad-hoc "I know it when I see it" code of behavioral infringement.

==Disputatio==
Even rules which are clearly put down in the commandments are capriciously enforced:
*Many people sign up and immediately get blocked for their username not conforming to the "first name, last initial" rule, one which almost no sysop actually conforms to with their own names -- neither does my own, by the way, but JohnW was taken when I signed up. Some sysops enforce this rule, and others ignore it. Either it should be policy, enforced by everybody, which means that every single user of Conservapedia has to change their name, even the sysops, or get rid of the rule.
*The worst is the 90/10 rule. Now, having a number ratio in the title makes it sure look like an objective guideline. And yes, the goal to keep users creating content instead of getting into non-productive debates is certainly a valid one. But I've seen users with only five edits get banished for eternity using this rule, as well as ones who have contributed hundreds of pages of content, and the last 15 edits or so were talk, so BAM. I had a particularly hard time with this rule when I first started editing, because Conservapedia does not welcome new users to edit articles directly, but are asked to first contribute on the talk page. Then comes a reply, and then you reply to that one, and suddenly you've racked up 4-5 talk edits in a few minutes. Beyond this, how do you measure 90%? Where do you start counting with long-term users? How many edits should a new user have made before being fairly blocked? Therefore, the 90/10 rule is effectively an "I know it when I see it" law masquerading as an objective one.

==Peroratio==
Just like no single Greek god could be considered "evil," I'd venture that most of the sysops have their own noble motives for doing things the way they do them. Hermes fashions himself as a teacher and a guide to new users. Hephaestus saw himself as a master of counter-intelligence in the war against vandals. Poseidon probably thinks that as a self-styled security officer, he should show no mercy in order to weed out the troublemakers. But the problem is, when you let sysops make up their own policy as they go, the people who have to account to them are enslaved by the lack of clear guidelines.

"I know it when I see it" wasn't a good enough definition of sin for God, and it shouldn't be here either.

User talk:Jpatt

2011-08-15T20:28:16Z

JDWpianist: /* Brewmaster's degree */ new section

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Your block policy ==

I was just wondering; why are you blocking people with the reason that they don't give their name?

People can simply say whatever name they wanted and you wouldn't know if it is true or not.
More importantly the account creation page states that submitting your name is '''optional'''
Can please explain the reasoning behind your block policy?

ps: I'd appreciate you not blocking me merely for asking this question. I just ask out of curiosity ;)

Thanks.

[[User:Philny|Philny]] 18:20, 4 January 2011 (EST)
:Just as it is optional for first name last initial, the block policy is of the administrators discretion. It helps eliminate sock accounts used by [troll]]s and if the user is truly interested in contributing in good faith, they will recreate their username as commanded. Do users/trolls use fake names? absolutely. Are you really Phil? I chose not to recreate your account but I could be wrong about you. Time will tell. Hope this is a sufficient answer. Have a great day! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:28, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Jpatt. In all honesty I don't see how your practice would help eliminate sock accounts. People can simply lie about who they are. Socks are best controlled through an IP range block if you asked me.
::Lastly I would think that good faith would be assumed for new people until they explicitly become trolls/vandals. but hey that's just me.
::I'm still trying to get rid of those liberal Wikipepdia ways. [[User:Philny|Philny]] 19:54, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Is it foolproof? No. They are not blocked from contributing just blocked from using that name. So it is of good faith on our part to allow them to recreate a username. I did not create the policy and I was subject to the same policy when I first joined. We'll banish someone when needed and we will ferret out those fake accounts over time. To obey an administrators request is the first step toward recognizing a good faith contributor.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)

::::Hi. My former name was STramp, but you seem to have decided that that cannot be my real name. I'm not quite sure why?[[User:StevenTramp|StevenTramp]] 21:23, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Re:Welcome! ==

Thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to read the Editor's Guide ;) --[[User:AznBurger|AznBurger]] 21:36, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative" ==

...but really not [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chris_Matthews&curid=10356&diff=846659&oldid=846644 family-friendly.] Thanks for heading him off! [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:32, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:The IP is a school and he didn't actually cuss which would cross the line. I am willing to give a second chance if the rules are followed. BTW, I hope no hard feelings for targeting you in the past. Your edits were excellent.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
::Life is too short for hard feelings. Good call on the "second chance" thing. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:39, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name ==

I'll write you an email about it if you like, I would have before but you locked the email so I could not. Account creation was also turned off, which makes recreating my account difficult. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy2|AlaskanEconomy2]] 20:43, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:I now feel pretty foolish not having checked this account before creating that one. Thanks/sorry. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:52, 8 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for uploading that image yesterday. With regards to my username, I created it before there was any specific username policy on Conservapedia's Guidelines or Commandments page (even though I've only been contributing recently). If it is important that I have username that contains only my name/initials, I will change it. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 17:40, 18 February 2011 (EST)

== New conservative pages for 2011 ==

I noticed you were laying down plans for pages to create. I think you might consider making a page on the pence amendment, the recent 240-185 house vote to amend Title X to remove the family planning grants from organizations that perform abortions (like planned parenthood). While I support the decision the issue is outside of my area of specialization and I am afraid of getting some important facts wrong. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:Maybe at some future point. It's too early to determine the outcome. You're welcome to start it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== uploading images ==

How can I upload non-political, non-controversial images that I made myself to Conservapedia? I suppose you or the Conservapedia administration would like to preview images before uploading them? How do I show them for you to preview? [[User:HPadleckas|HPadleckas]] 21:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

:Send to conservapedia@zoho.com--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)

==Celebrity crime==

Hi, Jpatt. I'm wondering how and when we should report (gloat over?) celebrity crime, like a female pop star arrested for being drunk in public, getting a speeding ticket, etc. Are we trying to prove that Hollywood produces (or encourages) self-indulgent behavior, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 2 March 2011 (EST)

:Personally, I don't have a litmus test for inclusion. I simply take celebrities, be it Democrat or Republican, and post their crimes. As role models, they need to be exposed as to why they make headlines. Their behavior is an example of who "not to follow". If you have suggestions, of course I would work with you. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:04, 2 March 2011 (EST)

::I had nothing in mind, just trying to stimulate thought here. Carry on, my good man! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:21, 5 March 2011 (EST)

== Delete ==

Hey Jpatt - I manually copy-pasted move a page from [[Frankfurt school]] to [[Essay:Frankfurt school]] - but upon examining the content it appears that the original author - CharlieO - copy pasted that from another site. Could you delete both pages? Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:57, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==Photo upload==
Hi, I would like to upload a photo of myself, I don't have the rights, can you do it for me? Thanks.--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 20:35, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Yes, send to conservapedia@zoho.com --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:19, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. :)--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:23, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I just sent it to you. :) --[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:32, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

:Done. [http://www.conservapedia.com/images/4/42/Me.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:41, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Thank you. :)--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:44, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== I need you to check your email ==

K? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 23:20, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== nice reversions! ==

You're fast, sir.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:50, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
:Did you hear? I'm Quick Draw McGraw!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:54, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for the helpful links and the welcome. I hope to become a valuable member of the community.

== Editing the Wicca page ==

I would like to formally request that the "murders" section be removed for the reasons stated on the talk page.

This is not a place to smear other people or post inflammatory material. {{unsigned|HarabecW}}

:I digress, this is a place to educate others and to warn them to stay clear of witchcraft. Find another topic to edit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:30, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I have looked at some of the disputed links, and while I don't know enough about the sources themselves to question their reliability, for most of the stories no causal relationship is established between the person's religious beliefs and their actions. One might just as well divide any story about crime between those where the perpetrator was male or female and argue that their gender was the causal factor. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:41, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A person's beliefs and their actions are always tied together whether you agree or not. If Wiccans start making the news for rape, I will start a new section. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Stubs ==

Do we use stub tags here on Conservapedia?-[[User:StevenTramp|StevenTramp]] 23:46, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:It's not really recommended or necessary.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:35, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Mistake of an email ==

I sent you an email raising a question - having seen the new evidence you can safely ignore it - sorry for that!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

==Ravens==

I noticed you reverted changes made to the Tower of London article that mentioned the legend of the ravens. I know you banned the editor for vandalism, but in this case, the story is true. There is a legend telling that if the ravens at the Tower leave, it portends the downfall of both the Tower and the kingdom. I know it's trivia, but it's fun too and I'd love to see it added back into the article. Here's a link about the story. http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/theravens.aspx [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:32, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Go ahead and add it back.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:38, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks! I'll add the reference too.[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:36, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

== Religion headline ==

Hi - that's a great news story, but I wonder if I may suggest a small change to the wording? At present is says "study came up with similar findings" but no other findings are listed to be similar too; it's an out of context quote.

I'd suggest saying something like "'''[[Religion]] comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings,''' says a 3-year, multi-million Pound survey conducted by Oxford University." Maybe even add that it is a liberal institution, that offered tenure to Richard Dawkins? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

== Maria Shriver ==

Hi - I noticed you added "Schwarzenegger" for Shriver's last name. I don't believe she ever changed her name legally and has never gone by the name "Schwarzenegger". [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
:Ok, I'll remove it. After her divorce she can go from Mrs. Maria Shriver to Ms. Maria Shriver. New age liberals are a joke. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:19, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

== user:JimMac ==

Hi - this user is vandalising articles and constantly reverting me. Please can you show him the door? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:52, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Raymond Davis Affair]]==
Do you know anything of this? The Obama administration evidently invoked Islamic law to circumvent the judicial system in Pakistan to obtain a Blackwater (or whatever) operative in Pakistan only weeks before the Abbotobad raid. People in Pakistan are very upset. The democratically elected regime & military are cooperating with the US because they fear Islamic fundementalism, yet when it suits him, Obama pays $2.3 million in blood money under Koranic law to get a hired mercenary out. Ironic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:03, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:I haven't heard this but it wouldn't surprise me.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
::Raymond was CIA--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== user:Jefferson ==

I wasn't sure how to contact you other than this, please let me know if there is another way if you would be so kind. I was not aware of the policy against using fact tags, thank you for informing me. I had seen them used in several articles and assumed it was okay. I would appreciate if you would clear something up for me about the citation policy, please: why is it the responsibility of a person who discovers uncited work to find the citation rather than the original poster of the work? I thought it would have been in the spirit of the encyclopedia's "no gossip" rules that statements should be cited and that calling attention to uncited materials would be helpful in clearing the site of gossip. Thanks again for filling me in and not banning me outright to begin with. I appreciate the help![[User:Jefferson|Jefferson]] 23:25, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:Jefferson, thanks for the mature response. It is the original poster who is supposed to reference. Our suggestion is if you find questionable content, put it on the talk page. If it can be discussed through, then someone can add a citation. If nobody questions the talk page, feel free to delete the questionable content. Unfortunately, this is not spelled out for new users yet. In the scope of ideology, a liberal would find fault with every conservative sentence. So there may be citation requests on other pages but it is not an acceptable form of contribution here. Let me know if I can be of any help. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:47, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps it would be useful to delete the fact tag template all together? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 23:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't know why I didn't think of that. For some reason I thought it was built-in to wikimedia but it's a tag, sure it should be deleted. Will discuss with Aschlafly.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== No rules found for editing a new article ==
The rules encourage discussion of intent of substantial edit of established articles, and discourage taking liberties of simply substantially editing those articles with no prior discussion. But, I have been substantially editing articles which I have created, and which no one else has either edited or commented on ('invisible' editors). Should I discuss with 'invisible' editors my intent of substantial edits of articles in regard to which they are 'invisible'?[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:09, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:The short answer is no. Discussions will be made upon disagreements. Substantial edits to established articles need not require approval either. Though if you are deleting content instead of adding to or replacing a viewpoint, then you will face resistance from other contributors and reverts. Hope that helps. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:17, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

== Uncited Sentences ==
"[[Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help#Completely_Uncited_Article_or_Completely_Uncited_Section_of_an_Article|If a sentence needs to be cited please use the "fact" template at the end of the sentence.]]" I'm only following Conservapedia protocol. -[[User:StudioFire|StudioFire]] 00:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I also suggest that you reread the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]], which include: "''Everything'' you post must be ''true'' and ''verifiable''." as well as "''Do not post personal opinion'' on an encyclopedia entry." There should be a Commandment for Ad hoc reasoning, seeing as how that seems to justify much of the content on this site...[[User:StudioFire|StudioFire]] 00:25, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
:That includes you, StudioFire. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:56, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for the immature response StudioFail which proves the reasoning on the fact tags. We allow content from liberals but if we let them add citation requests- they'll find something wrong with every page.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:08, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

== revision delete ==

What's the point of oversighting vandals if all they do is blank the page?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:29, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:Aesthetics, red links are messy. Just so you know, France won the 100 year war between England and most of their colonial wars in Africa.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:: <nowiki>:D</nowiki> I've a feeling that French military history is going to be something of a meme around my presence. Someone who dislikes France might say France took their time kicking the British out during the 100 years war. Someone who likes France would then refer you to William the Conqueror. Then we'd be told that William the Conqueror doesn't count, because he wasn't French, he was a Normand. Never mind that because of his conquest of England English courts spoke French for 300 years after his death. The whole subject is rather tired to me. I've never been one for Patriotism, either for France or the USA. I know better than to associate myself with the failures and achievements of others just because we share an ethnic group or political boundaries.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dike! ==

What brought on that reversion to a perfectly innocuous edit? --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 21:12, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:Just curious as to your intentions. Carry on great patron saint.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you for your kind welcome! ==

I appreciate it. =) -Melissa Fox, 2011

== Regarding "Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform" Essay ==

I was surprised at the boldness of this essay. Have you ever read George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''? If not, I'd like to suggest you at least read a comprehensive synopsis of it. It has the very famous line "All animals are equal, but some animals are ''more'' equal than others.", and I couldn't help but feel that your essay had the same viewpoint (except with humans, obviously).

Another quote from the book for you to consider:

{{Cquote|Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?|20px|20px|George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''}}

Perhaps you can see the slight correlation I made between the your essay and ''Animal Farm''. I do not write this in spite, and I have no malicious intentions...I just thought I'd use my First Amendment right to instigate some casual, intelligent conversation. --[[User:LifeHelper|LifeHelper]] 13:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:I did read Animal Farm about 25 years ago. Subconscience-based viewpoint? You are what you fill your mind with but I wrote it due to liberals insistence that Conservapedia be fair. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. To be fair is to give lies equal time. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:59, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::Forgive me for quoting Orwell again;

{{Cquote|If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.|20px|20px|George Orwell's ''1984''}}

Food for thought! -[[User:LifeHelper|LifeHelper]] 14:27, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

A lie never becomes the truth, only puts on the appearance of truth, clothed in the truth but at heart, still a lie. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:09, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::"A just weight and balance are the LORD's." -- Proverbs, 16:11. [[User:DavidHRG|DavidHRG]] 14:34, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Sure, I believe that. Judgement is for the Lord. "What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." --Proverbs 19:22 So we are able to tell what is wrong and what is right, we don't wait for His judgement to tell us.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:57, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== BHO ==

Hi. I was just curious as to why you deleted my edit to the Obama page. Because last time I checked, I could source my claim, and yours just happened to be hear-say conspiracy theory that you're wasting your time with. If you're searching for the truth and not slander why not go with the claim that can be proven like mine? - http://conservapedia.com/User:MAVE182

:Mave182, maybe you didn't read my message to you. Proven claims... kidding right? How do you get proof when the person were talking about hasn't yet disclosed it? Hear-say, conspiracy theory? Here is my message to you, again. '' a few mass visits, black liberation theology, invitation for atheists to join WH Faith-based initiatives, no baptism record and much more secrecy. The refs just don't legitimize Obama's faux Christianity.'' Let me add his disdain for traditional marriage, his support of death to womb children, his constant pandering to the Muslim faith? He's as Christian as much as Stalin was.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Hey my conservative brethren. In case you don't know what proven means, here's how. You say something then back it up with evidence, not free floating hate speech you heard from Glenn Beck. Cite just one of those claims with a source that agrees, and be source i mean something legitimate. As for my claim, here's a few things that back up his Christianity.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36287446/Www-barackobama-com-Factcheck-2007-11-12-Obama-Has-Never
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757
http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-inauguration.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOOCABMz6jg
You shouldn't deny truth just because it doesn't cater to your narrow minded, slandering viewpoint.
--[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 22:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT) 

Love how you provide ''the drinkers of Obama's bathwater'' as proof. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hi JPatt. I gave the guy a day to review the site and its aims. Personally I don't agree with many of the things on Conservapedia but I respect its rules and understand its right to present what information it does. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:10, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:::The truth is non-negotiable, lack of agreement is not an easy thing to digest. As I observe on social media, the right is magnifying each and every flaw in their candidates. Let's hope that our common sense and values overcome the many flaws we all have.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:26, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
::::From our flaws we find perfection.[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 03:09, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Tolaration of more than one religion doesnt make you a bad christian. In fact, I believe if you can't do that, it makes you a very poor Christian. And if you prefer, here's a source that doesn't drink obama's bathwater, but rather chugs the radical right's urine. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/28/obama-christian-choice
As for Max, the entire point of this site is putting up a non-bias viewpoint that is based on fact. Fact is, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. You may disagree with his politics which is fine, but according to the 1st Ammendment, this man shouldn't be denied the right to practice his religion and shouldn't be slandered as a Christian for unrelated issues. --[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 17:01, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

:I refuse to reply to any future posts of yours on my page. Your sharp tongue speaks all righteous leftist points, a Cafeteria Christian, one that ignores Intrinsic Evil and an apologist for outright sin. What Christian would support the evil that Obama supports? You slander Glenn Beck, you slander Fox News and then you have to gall to call me a slanderer. You can chose to live like the pigs do but you aren't fooling anyone here, you hear?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::It's very simple MAVE and since you came off ''your'' high horse, I guess that does merit a response. I am talking beyond accuracy and beyond statistics. I am talking about absolutes. Who are you MAVE? Let's talk about MAVE, hidden in the shadows, full of knowledge- yet identity unknown, a keyboard diva? To continue to communicate with you would mean I have to match wits with an unknown, convert you into my way of thinking. When I know already that you are passionate, yet deceptive, not intent to learn, only to play games and waste time. Just because I will call out wrong and confront evil, don't try and pass it off as like I'm trying to act as a tough guy. You just make yourself sound thuggish. Jesus rules! Amen. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:19, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== I thought you might enjoy this ==

*[[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]

::Fixed typo [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:01, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

==Book of Tobit==

Hi Jpatt; I was looking for the Conservapedia article on the Book of Tobit; it's a red link in the Bible article. If I read the search results correctly, you deleted it. May I ask why? I'm interested in working on an article about Tobit unless there's a good reason for omitting from Conservapedia. Thanks in advance --[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 19:27, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't recall deleting but it may have been a copied source. Please, recreate how you feel best. Incorporate deleted information if it is valid.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:18, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== John Adams "Notable Quote" Error ==

I just came across the article on John Adams and I found an error. You listed as a notable quote "[The Declaration of Independence] That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." However the accompanying footnote takes you to Gingrich's book, Rediscovering God in America pg 6 at Google books where the quote is attributed to John ''Quincy'' Adams. Im new to Conservapedia so I dont know if I should go ahead and make the edit. I'll just leave it to you. --[[User:JR|JR]] 13:20, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Newbie, nice to meet you. Now that is a good catch and clearly an error on my part. In the future, no harm nor foul to edit pages. Quotes are tough to verify. Sites like Brainyquote will not suffice. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Nice to meet you too. Ive read the edit policy since my post so Im up to speed on what to do now. Thanks! --[[User:JR|JR]] 19:59, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Thank you for moving my new article to one with a proper name. I wasn't sure how to go about it, so thank you. Any tips on how to edit/create articles would help alot, if you have the time of course. --[[User:CAndrs|CAndrs]] 20:10, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== Quadrupling Conservapedia's traffic ==

I have a simple plan which I think could quadruple Conservapedia's web traffic in a short time that will not cost any money. I should find out in a week if I get the cooperation of a couple of key individuals. The only downside of my plan is it doesn't involve the concepts of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]], [[Atheism and obesity|mentioning the obesity with any subcultures]] or referring to [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheism as a worldview for clowns.]] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think my simple plan will be implemented based on some receptive feedback I received. I have to implement some things first. Not sure how fast it will happen though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

== FOIA ==
[[User:FOIA]] has been blocked? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:Never mind. I see what happened. Good block. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== Singer images ==

I found some replacements from the Wikimedia Commons. They're on the page now. Thanks!!!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 08:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I thank you greatly, Jpatt!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Unblocked ==

Thanks. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 09:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for the invite. I decline.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I knew you would decline, but I didn't want to be impolite. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my page!--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Brewmaster's degree ==

Hi JPatt, I noticed that you added [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Worst_College_Majors&curid=102717&diff=901252&oldid=891798 brewmaster] to the list of "worst college majors." That made me think of a friend of mine who is an actual brewmaster. Would you believe that he can basically live anywhere he wants to, and there will always be a job for him wherever he goes (provided there are breweries nearby)? In whatever economy, anywhere in the world, there's a built-in demand for what he's capable of making. I'd call that a pretty darned good major. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:28, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Socrates

2011-08-15T17:32:53Z

JDWpianist: /* See also */ fix red link

[[Image:Socrates.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Greek philosopher Socrates]]

'''Socrates''' was an ancient [[Greek]] philosopher, who lived between approximately 470 and 399 BC. He is best known for his method of argument (''elenchus'', or the Socratic Method), which poses questions that may expose logical errors underlying an opponent's argument, though he usually stated that his purpose was not to argue but to pursue the truth in alliance with his opponent. Socrates had served in the army in his youth, like all Greek men of his time. To modern readers he is most familiar as a character in many books by his disciple [[Plato]] or his contemporary [[Xenophon]]. If Socrates wrote any books himself they are lost. Eventually the courts of [[Athens]] found him guilty on charges of [[impiety]] and corrupting the youth, and sentenced him to drink hemlock, a poison that took his life. Socrates had an opportunity to escape from prison, but declined to do so. <ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesbio.html</ref>

==Time line==
His elementary school education included literature, music and gymnastics. He then studied Philosophy and Public Speaking. He was a sculptor like his father. His statue, ''The Three Graces'', was at the entrance to the Acropolis for over six hundred years. He had no formal students. A veteran of the Peloponnesian war, he began philosophical conversations and debates with people in restaurants and stores. His teachings included that ignorance is the cause of all vice, and he emphasized being rational and questioning one’s own thoughts and inner voice. He was condemned by a small majority rather than unanimously. His defense was that what he did wasn’t bad enough to receive death, but might be worth a small fine.<ref>based on Funk & Wagnals New Encyclopedia. ''Socrates.'' F & W’s bibliography for their article on Socrates includes: Guthrie, W.K.C. ''A History of Greek Philosophy.'' 1981. Cambridge. (about the course of Greek philosophy), and Montuori, Maria. ''Socrates: Philosophy of a Myth.'' Humanities. 1981. (about Socratic mythology.) and other books.</ref>

==The question of the historical Socrates==

The major problem in studying the thought of Socrates is that we have to rely on the writings and reports of others since Socrates himself wrote nothing. There is also no historical record of anybody named Socrates ever existing; a vast majority of what we know of the man comes from his pupils, especially [[Plato]], who wrote more about Socrates than anybody else.

[[Aristotle]] examines Socrates in his ''Metaphysics'', and [[Xenophon]] provides some additional information. But [[Plato]], who was Socrates' pupil, is our principal source of information. He (Plato) wrote numerous dialogues in which Socrates figures either as the main speaker or as a secondary character. The problem is separating out from these dialogues what is Socrates and what is Plato. And the chief question is the origin of Plato's "Forms Theory".

[[Frederick Copleston|Coopleston]], in his ''History of Philosophy'', takes the traditional view, largely accepting Aristotle who stated that Socrates did not "separate" the Forms. On this view, although the historical Socrates is presented, especially in the early dialogues, the fully developed theory of Plato's is an elaboration or development of Socrates' views and, especially in his later writings, Plato has used the character of Socrates to expound these views.

There are two aspects of the historic Socrates' life that can be reasonably assumed to be true because they appear to be consistent among most accounts: that he was a critic of [[Athenian democracy]] and that he was executed by the state because of it.

==Some famous Socrates quotes<ref>http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Socrates</ref>==
*The unexamined life is not worth living.
*Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.
*Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others.
*Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.
*I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.

== See also ==
*[[Xantippe]]
*[[Euthyphro]]
*[[Apology (Plato)]]
*[[Phaedo]]

== References ==
<references/>

Plato, Christopher Gill, ''The Symposium''. London: Penguin Books, 1999

[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings

2011-08-15T13:54:34Z

JDWpianist: Created page with "An unsolicited comment can be read here, for all who are interested. Since I'm not a sysop, I have no voice in the matter, but I at least hope that some of you will take a few mi..."

An unsolicited comment can be read here, for all who are interested. Since I'm not a sysop, I have no voice in the matter, but I at least hope that some of you will take a few minutes to consider my ideas about the block policies:

[[User:JDWpianist/JDW's_unsolicited_input_on_blocking_policy]]

[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:54, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

User:JDWpianist/JDW's unsolicited input on blocking policy

2011-08-15T13:52:07Z

JDWpianist: Created page with "==Exordium== I realize that only admins and editors with blocking rights have been invited to weigh in about blocking policy reform. However, I thought that having been blocked s..."

==Exordium==
I realize that only admins and editors with blocking rights have been invited to weigh in about blocking policy reform. However, I thought that having been blocked several times -- a few of which I'll admit were justified -- and having lived through them all to become one of the only non-admin editors who's stayed around to watch a lot of editors come and go, I have a unique perspective on what Conservapedia could do to make more good users want to contribute.

Exodus tells us that when God had problems with the Israelites constantly sinning, he gave them a list of commandments to abide by. One might wonder why this was so. I would argue that one reason was this: without knowing what an authority expects of you, you don't necessarily feel freer, rather the opposite. The constant wondering what kind of offense might get you zapped creates a tension which can make a person feel subject to the whims of capricious authority figures, God in the case of my example. Why, for example, did God not smite Moses for murder after he killed the Egyptian, but the Israelites' complaining earned them 40 years' wandering in the wilderness? Was this fair? Was every single person on the face of the earth (even the kids?) wicked when God decided to send a flood to kill them all? A Christian or a Jew must assume that the God of Genesis and the fist 20 chapters of Exodus is the same one as after, so the problem wasn't that God was unfair, but that the people needed to be told what the law was.

What the Ten Commandments gave the Israelites was a clear blueprint for what it takes to live in favor with God. This was a great contrast to other ancient religions, like the Greeks for instance, who were never sure what action was favored by which god (see Plato's [[Euthyphro]]), and must have lived in constant fear of enraging some god or another.

==Narratio==
In my opinion, the problem with the way blocking is currently handled at Conservapedia is that it's more like the Ancient Greek system than the Hebrew covenant. There is a list somewhere of ostensible block reasons, but they're extremely subjective, and in practice the sysops each have their own personal likes and dislikes which may or may not be set off by a particular user's edits depending on the sysop's mood.
*One sysop, whom I'll call Hermes, likes to greet new users by saying "Welcome, I'd like you to write such and such article" and then bans the user for not agreeing.
*Another former one, whom I'll call Hephaestus, would constantly ban users who made no controversial edits, simply because he had a suspicion that they also edit at RWiki.
*There's also a Poseidon, who often appears to relish using his blocking powers as a form of intimidation, an "earth-shaking" if you will, and although he claims it's based on clear principles, it's more of an ad-hoc "I know it when I see it" code of behavioral infringement.

==Disputatio==
Even rules which are clearly put down in the commandments are capriciously enforced:
*Many people sign up and immediately get blocked for their username not conforming to the "first name, last initial" rule, one which almost no sysop actually conforms to with their own names -- neither does my own, by the way, but JohnW was taken when I signed up. Some sysops enforce this rule, and others ignore it. Either it should be policy, enforced by everybody, which means that every single user of Conservapedia has to change their name, even the sysops, or get rid of the rule.
*The worst is the 90/10 rule. Now, having a number ratio in the title makes it sure look like an objective guideline. And yes, the goal to keep users creating content instead of getting into non-productive debates is certainly a valid one. But I've seen users with only five edits get banished for eternity using this rule, as well as ones who have contributed hundreds of pages of content, and the last 15 edits or so were talk, so BAM. I had a particularly hard time with this rule when I first started editing, because Conservapedia does not welcome new users to edit articles directly, but are asked to first contribute on the talk page. Then comes a reply, and then you reply to that one, and suddenly you've racked up 4-5 talk edits in a few minutes. Beyond this, how do you measure 90%? Where do you start counting with long-term users? How many edits should a new user have made before being fairly blocked? Therefore, the 90/10 rule is effectively an "I know it when I see it" law masquerading as an objective one.

==Peroratio==
Just like no single Greek god could be considered "evil," I'd venture that most of the sysops have their own noble motives for doing things the way they do them. Hermes fashions himself as a teacher and a guide to new users. Hephaestus saw himself as a master of counter-intelligence in the war against vandals. Poseidon probably thinks that as a self-styled security officer, he should show no mercy in order to weed out the troublemakers. But the problem is, when you let sysops make up their own policy as they go, the people who have to account to them are enslaved by the lack of clear guidelines.

"I know it when I see it" wasn't a good enough definition of sin for God, and it shouldn't be here either.

User:JDWpianist

2011-08-15T12:28:06Z

JDWpianist:

{{userboxtop|JDWpianist, editor}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{Userbox|red|white|MT-g+ |This user is a [[music theory]] geek.}}
{{Userbox|brown|white|MH-g+ |This user is a music history geek.}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Stieler_Portrait_Ludwig_van_Beethoven.jpg|45px]]|'''This user is writing his dissertation on [[Beethoven]]. You can ask him anything!'''}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Johann_Bach.jpg|45px]]|'''This user plays [[Bach|Bach's]] [[Well-Tempered Clavier]] daily'''<ref>That's not an exaggeration either!</ref>.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Hello everyone! I'm a classical musician, teacher, and doctoral student (PhD in Musicology) living in [[Vienna]], [[Austria]]. I'm happy to be here, making contributions (at least while procrastinating from working on my dissertation) to topics in which I have a special interest:

*'''[[Music]]''' (Composers, [[Piano]], [[Orchestra]], String Quartet, [[Opera]], Choral Music, Music Theory, Music History, Orchestration, Musical Semiotics, Ethnomusicology, Hymnology, [[Jazz]], [[Rock music|Rock]])

*'''[[Austria]]n culture, history, and politics'''

*'''[[Vienna]]'''! An astounding place.

*'''[[German language]]'''

*'''[[Southern Baptist Convention|Southern Baptist]] culture and history'''

If you have any suggestions or substantial issues with my edits, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to discuss them. And if I ever don't reply or edit for a few days, it means that I've stopped procrastinating.

'''UPDATE (5-16-2010):''' I've decided that previous differences of opinion were not worth "taking my ball and going home," and have appreciated the encouragement I've since received from various people. That being said, this is a moot point at the moment, since between fatherhood, work, and writing, my wiki-editing time is more limited than ever. Philosophical discussions here have been interesting, but I don't anticipate getting involved in any here again.

The principles behind my writing and edits are simple: truth, clarity, verifiability, and reasonableness.

[[/JDW's unsolicited input on blocking policy|My unsolicited input on blocking policy]]

[[/Sandbox|My Sandbox]]

==Leo Treitler on certainty and truth==
{{cquote|It is not at all necessarily the same to be certain of something as it is to regard something as being true. There are all sorts of things--matters of fact or feeling or action--about which we may be certain although they may not be judged either true or false. That is mainly because our judgements about them are contingent upon our experience and present circumstance, while true propositions are those that we expect to hold in all circumstances.}}
"The Power of Positivist Thinking" (1989)

==[[Mozart]]'s ''[[Die Zauberflöte]]'', or The Magic Flute==
Here's a fantastic Youtube clip of the "Three Boys" from Mozart's Magic Flute. In one of the great paeans to [[The Enlightenment]], the three boys in this opera (technically a ''Singspiel'') sing about a peaceful future free of superstition and ruled by reason. It's a shame that 200 years later, we're still not there yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1km_1_SDVU

This clip is from a legendary 1983 performance by the [[Munich]] opera, with the incomparable Lucia Popp singing the role of Pamina.

Opening Text: 
''Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden'' 
''Die Sonn' auf goldner Bahn.'' 
''Bald soll der Aberglaube schwinden,'' 
''Bald siegt der weise Mann.'' 
''O, holde Ruhe, steig hernieder,'' 
''Kehr in der Menschen Herzen wieder;'' 
''Dann ist die Erd' ein Himmelreich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich.'' 

Soon, heralding the morning 
The sun will shine forth on its golden path. 
Soon superstition shall vanish, 
Soon the wise man shall triumph. 
O sweet repose, descend, 
Return to the hearts of men; 
Then Earth will be a realm of Heaven, 
And mortals will be like Gods, 
And mortals will be like Gods.

After this introduction, they encounter Pamina, who is on the verge of suicide. They reproach her for this unnatural and immoral act, and convince her to go with them to see her lover Tamino.

==A Word to Students about Wikis==
It is my sincere belief that students who follow the links on this website are already showing a great deal of curiosity. A wiki article can be a good place to satisfy one's desire to learn, but in this editor's opinion is even better as a jumping-off point for further learning.

The reason why an encyclopedia requires sources, and why wiki administrators ideally are very strict about requiring footnotes and extensive bibliographies, is not only to prove that the information is verifiable, but to give the reader a hint as to where more detailed information can be obtained. It is even more ideal if the sources point to books, where a subject can be learned about in depth.

It is both a blessing and a curse that the internet has allowed the curious such quick ways as wikis to read an overview of a given subject. Before these wikis became popular, one needed to go to a library, open an encyclopedia, and then follow the references to other books in the library. This method took much more time than doing an internet search, but the advantage was that the books mentioned in encyclopedia articles were often close at hand in the library, and once one had found a desired book in a particular section of the bookshelves, there were often several related books in the same area. Of course all of this would be too much for the student to take in in one day, but they would know where to look if further research was ever necessary.

Compare this with a wiki, where an article can typically be longer than one in a bound encyclopedia. It's possible to completely satisfy one's curiosity in around ten minutes. The problem is, it gives the illusion of completeness. One needn't go to find books on the subject, because the article seems to say it all at first glance, whereas the library method lets a student know that any subject has a great wealth of information written about it.

As an editor here at Conservapedia, I do my best within my area of expertise to give a reliable ''summary'' of the scholarship on a particular topic, a good entry point for a student who is curious to learn more. I must emphasize though, that all wikis are inadequate: they oversimplify, they contain bias, and there's a great possibility that they contain errors. This is why following the sources is always a good idea. A book on a subject, or a more specialized encyclopedia, will most likely be written by an expert, who has spent his or her life studying the topic they have written about. As with any human, the writer will also have biases, but a bias based on an in-depth knowledge of the subject is preferable to an ideological bias that imposes an oversimplified worldview on every subject they opine on.

An expert can tell you exactly where their knowledge begins and ends, but the ideologue will proclaim himself an expert on everything. The ideologue proves his simplified view of the world with circular logic, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his view as irrelevant. About this kind of person, Geoffery Chaucer had already understood and deflated their arrogance over 600 years ago. Out of the whole cast of ''Canterbury Tales'', he perhaps reserves the most scorn for the character of the Monk, of whom he writes, "And I said his opinion was right; why should he study and lose his wits ever poring over a book in the cloister, or toil with his hands and labor as St. Augustine bids?" <ref>translation by Gerard NeCastro http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/translation/ct/01gp.html</ref> In other words, the Monk did not need to read a book, because he was already correct in thought; he did not need to waste his time fulfilling the church's commandment to do good works and give to charity, because he was already correct in deed.

In summary, don't forget that the brick-and-mortar library is still the ideal place to learn, and that whatever can be found on the internet is still only a tiny fraction of what is out there. Let your curiosity be your guide, and most of all, do not put all of your trust in one website for information.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:26:09Z

JDWpianist: /* On archiving */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:16:45Z

JDWpianist: /* On archiving */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:15:04Z

JDWpianist: /* Why were the archives deleted? */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:01:36Z

JDWpianist: /* Why were the archives deleted? */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:00:12Z

JDWpianist: /* Why were the archives deleted? */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-12T19:31:46Z

JDWpianist: /* Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above */ no vote

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive2|Archive 2]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House?

2011-08-12T16:14:33Z

JDWpianist: /* Influence of money? */

== Is it possible that... ==

...those who are elected to the House tend to better represent the [[Best of the Public]]? Would it be possible to examine the overall backgrounds of House members as opposed to Senate members to ascertain how far their backgrounds are removed from the public? I suspect we would find that far fewer Senate members tend to have "common man" backgrounds, and thus, that it's easier for them to fall into the limousine liberal mindset. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:11, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

: Superb insight ... and I think the rules of the House are more welcoming to the [[best of the public]] than the clubby rules of the Senate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:59, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting Note and My take ==

When the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 was shoved through the Democratic-controlled Congress—despite strong opposition from the dramatically dying Whig Party—and signed into law by Franklin Peirce, it was the biggest setback for the Abolition movement since the Fugitive Slave Act four years earlier. The passage of this bill led to the formation of the Republican Party—and the final demise of the Whigs—and the first ever Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1855. Yet even though the opposition held control of the House, the Democrats still held control of the Senate and thus it wouldn't be until the Election of 1860 before the Republicans took control of both Houses.

I think we still need to remember that the reason the Senate is more Liberal than the House, is because there is a laggard factor. Congressmen serve a term of two years, while a term is six years for a Senator. Six years ago the nation was very upset with the actions of Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katerina and thus it is important to look at the Senate as a window into the past. Now before someone starts talking about reforming the election process, remember that the US Constitution originally mandated that the Senate be elected by state legislatures—not popular vote—and if we look at the makeup of state legislatures in 2004 and 2006 we would see that the US Senate would have been made up of more Republicans than Democrats, because of Republican majority in state legislatures. My point; the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing the first time around! -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 13:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Longer terms to avoid reactionary politics ==

From what I know of the Australian Senate which based on the US Senate, the longer and overlapping terms are to keep the government under check.. unless there was a huge backlash against liberals/conservitives for a good ten years there will always be a strong opposition to keep radical laws at bay whether it is conservitives rolling out huge tax cuts or liberals undertaking massive tax increases, it is there to make moderation the result and not radicalism. [[User:Jtibbs|Jtibbs]] 02:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Influence of money? ==

How about the fact that, since the Senate races take place on a much larger scale than the house ones, they almost always require more funding? This means that candidates are far more likely to give in to liberal special interests and unions, since their donations can be more valuable to them than sticking to principles.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 09:14, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:Are you saying that only liberal interest groups try to influence elections? I think there's plenty of lobbyist money going to both parties. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:11, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Well no, of course there's money flowing around on both sides of the spectrum. But liberals are far more likely to flip-flop their opinion (think [[John Kerry]]), so it's far more frequent for them to change their opinion around to suit the needs of whoever is signing the check. True conservatives tend to be a lot more dedicated to their values, and won't sell out their constituents.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 19:29, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Does anyone agree with me?--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 22:58, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Not really. I think you're indulging in some special pleading. There's only one reason that so many Republicans and Democrats in Congress were for the bailout. You can say they weren't "true conservatives," but on the same token "true liberals" can complain that John Kerry wasn't one of them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:14, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-11T21:05:24Z

JDWpianist: /* a perspective from a pianist */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-11T21:02:33Z

JDWpianist: /* Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw) */

Talk:Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House?

2011-08-10T14:11:00Z

JDWpianist: /* Influence of money? */

Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House?

2011-08-10T14:04:02Z

JDWpianist: add more about redistricting

As the political struggle over the [[debt ceiling]] in July 2011 illustrates, the [[U.S. Senate]] is currently more liberal than the [[U.S. House of Representatives]]? Other examples include how the House voted to end funding of the [[abortion]] provider [[Planned Parenthood]], yet the Senate voted to continue the funding.

''Why'' is the Senate more [[liberal]] than the House? Reasons include:

*Senate elections are statewide, and thus are more easily influenced by [[liberal]] media organizations than local House elections are.

*Senators are elected to a six year term, rather than the two years that members of the House of Representatives are elected to, making the Senate less accountable to the voters. The Senate, for much of its history, has always been more moderate than the House.

*Individual Senators receive more media attention than House members do, thereby making the Senators more full of themselves than House members are.

*Because Senators are elected to six year terms instead of two, the Senate is still Democratic while the House is Republican.

*The course of history is towards increasing [[conservatism]], but the Senate's longer term of office means it is slower than the House in catching up to the increasingly conservative public.

* Because only 1/3 of the Senate is elected each year, only 1/3 of the seats can shift from Democrat to Republican in a given election (excepting special elections). However, the entire House is up for reelection every two years. So, if 60% of voters vote Republican in a given election, roughly 60% of the House will be Republican (actually, that isn't exactly true. It depends on the distribution of Democrats and Republicans among electoral districts. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion). However, since only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election each year, even with significant seat changes, it's still slower to respond than the House. The Democrats lost 6 of the 19 Senate seats they held that were up for reelection this past 2010. In the House, they had a net loss of 63 seats of the 257 they held that were up for reelection (they actually lost a few more than 63, but gained a few too). So, they actually lost a HIGHER percentage of seats in the Senate than the House. However, fewer Senate seats were up for election, so they still controlled it. One of the reasons for the higher percentage of Senate seats lost was because many Congressional Districts will always vote Democrat (or Republican) no matter what. In NY-15, Democrat Charlie Rangel won 80% of the vote in spite of facing massive corruption charges. It helped that NY-15 is the most pro-Democrat district in the country. Rangel won over 90% of the vote in 2008, before the charges. If a Democrat senator were facing those charges, then since the state as a whole would be significantly closer than an individual district, they'd almost certainly lose. (As Republican Ted Stevens did in traditional red-state Alaska in 2008). But since some districts have such great support for one side or the other, it's pretty much impossible to get them to switch sides. Hence, the Senate actually sees more swing in most elections than the House, but since not every seat is up for election, it has less impact.

*Senate election races are less dependent on grassroots activism than on money, which tends to shift the focus away from the social views of the voters

*Gerrymandering and voter distribution. There are House seats that are totally safe for Democrats, and some totally safe for Republicans. Charles Rangel’s seat is a perfect example of one the Democrats will not lose for the foreseeable future. With no fear of losing in an election, you only fear is base. There are lots of Republican candidates that could never lose to a Democrat, but could be ousted by the Tea Party. They therefore have to appeal to the Tea Party and not the centrist voter. Same idea with the Democrats. Now, a certain number of these safe seats occur naturally. Cities will tend to be highly Democratic while certain rural areas will always go Republican. Politicians increase the number of these seats through Gerrymandering. It is in a Democrat's best interest to have conservative areas of his district removed and liberal sections added. It is in a Republican’s best interest to go along with it - because his seat becomes safer as well. The Senate is different. You can’t Gerrymander a Senate seat and the laws of probability will give you a much tighter race that is decided by independent voters and not the base. Senators therefore need to appeal to the independent voter over the base. Just look at the last election. The Republicans were supposed to win in Nevada, Delaware and Alaska. In all three cases the candidates focused more on the base than the independent voter and lost.

**Redistricting also cuts the other direction. The last two times Congressional districts were redrawn (in 1993 and 2003), Republicans were very strong in state legislatures, meaning that many districts in the USA are calculated to maximize Republican gains and minimize Democratic ones in the individual districts. However, the overall state's balance of voters remains the same; this means that Republicans can more easily achieve a majority in the House than in the Senate, since states which lean Democratic will reflect that in Senate elections, but minimize it in the House.

*As a much smaller body than the House, special interests groups have a greater influence on Senators. Members may come to D.C. with conservative principles but easily get absorbed into the beltway lifestyle.

{{Add to list}}

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:mystery]]

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T12:28:40Z

JDWpianist: /* Problem with organization */ new section

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Dan Savage

2011-08-06T17:01:07Z

JDWpianist: Undo revision 897937 by AggiePride (talk) rv vulgar vandalism

'''Dan Savage''' is a columnist for the ''Seattle Stranger'' and has engaged in various campaigns to promote homosexuality and to smear conservatives and Christians.

== [[Gary Bauer]] ==
In the year 2000, in revenge for comments Bauer made, Savage infiltrated Bauer's campaign with the intent to infect Bauer with the flu (which Savage had at the time) by doing such things as licking doorknobs he thought Gary Bauer may touch. <ref>[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3092 Here, Dan Savage details his efforts at infecting Gary Bauer]</ref> He also illegally voted in the Iowa caucus despite not being an Iowa resident, and was thus arrested on misdemeanor charges and sentenced to 50 hours of community service and a year's probation.<ref>http://qrd.org/qrd/media/radio/thiswayout/summary/newswrap/2000/N659-11.13.00</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/how-to-be-an-iowan-for-a-day.html?src=pm</ref>

==Rick Santorum==
After Santorum's statements on homosexuality<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm</ref> in 2003, Dan Savage urged his readers to find another, less flattering definition for "santorum." After such a definition was chosen, Savage created a site called spreadingsantorum.com (not appropriate) and had instigated a Google-bombing campaign placing it as the first result given for every search. Savage later instigated a similar but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against [[Rick Warren]].

== It Gets Better ==
After a spike in news reports on [[Homosexuality and mental illness|gay youth suicides]], Dan Savage started the [[It Gets Better project]]. The point of the project is to make videos assuring gay youths that their lives will improve after high school and college, and that bullying experienced for being gay will subside or be overcome by positive experiences.

== Personal life ==
An [[open homosexual]], Savage was "married" in Vancouver to his long time partner Terry Miller, and they have an adopted son DJ.<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134628750/dan-savage-for-gay-teens-life-gets-better</ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal smear machine]]
*[[Village Voice]]

==References==
<references/>

==External link==
*http://www.youtube.com/user/itgetsbetterproject
*[http://cp.noym.net/6c5a00fedfca7c0f User talk:Tmtoulouse/NAMBLA], From RW 1.0, April 2007. Dan Savage is considered an expert in Googlebombing.

{{Liberalism}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Savage, Dan}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Donald Trump

2011-08-06T17:00:35Z

JDWpianist: Undo revision 897928 by AggiePride (talk)rv vandalism

[[File:031711trump.jpg|right]]

'''Donald Trump''' is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, and [[television]] personality. He was born in [[Queens]], [[New York City|New York]], [[New York]] on June 14, 1946. He has engaged in many financial pursuits and has a net worth estimated at $2.4 billion.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list?page=2 Forbes 400: Richest People in America, Forbes, September 2010]</ref> He graduated from the New York Military Academy in 1964 and first attended college at [[Fordham University]] for two years before transferring to the more competitive [[University of Pennsylvania]] and then completing his studies at the prestigious Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Trump has five children.

Donald Trump attended the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. He told the Christian Broadcast Network that he still considers himself a [[Presbyterian]] and attends services for all major holidays and Sundays, and that "The Bible is certainly THE book." He receives Bibles from fans in the mail, and he either stores them or gives them away to others.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52942.html Donald Trump talks religion: 'I am a Christian' Politico, April 11, 2011]</ref>

Trump considered [[presidential election 2012|running for President in 2012]] as a [[Republican]]. He questioned the citizenship of [[Barack Obama]] and his failure to produce his birth certificate, and got him to put one out. He dropped out of the race.

==Career==

Donald Trump began his career at Trump Organization. In his college years, he helped revitalize one of his father's failing real estate ventures. Donald Trump began opening hotels and casinos, which provided him with the cash flow to engage in other ventures. He owns the world famous Trump Tower, and is the founder of the publicly traded Trump Hotel Casinos & Resorts. Trump also owns the Trump brand, which sells a variety of items, such as bottled water, steak, and even mortgages. Trump has authored a number of books and weathered changing business fortunes, but despite the challenges that he has encountered, he has continued to be a successful businessman and entrepreneur.

==Major Properties==

*Trump World Tower: 845 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY.

*Trump Tower: 725 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10022 Personal Residence

*Trump Taj Mahal

*Trump Marina

*Bank of America Center (San Francisco)

*The Trump Building at 40 Wall Street

*Trump Plaza

*Trump Park Avenue

*Trump Entertainment Resorts

*TrumpStreet Casino & Entertainment Complex, Philadelphia

*AXA Financial Center, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY

*Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago

*Mar-A-Lago Palm Beach

*Four golf courses in the U.S.

==Media==

In 2003 Trump began as the host and executive producer of the reality [[television]] show ''The Apprentice'', where contestants compete for a position in Trump's organization. On this show, Trump popularized his catchphrase "You're fired!"

Trump owns the Miss Universe Pageant. Controversy arose when one of the winners, Tara Conner, was caught breaking pageant rules by drinking and other activities. Trump gave her a second chance after personally speaking with her, and allowed her to retain her crown as she attended rehabilitation. For several weeks after this, [[Rosie O'Donnell]] berated Trump for his decision on ''The View''. A bitter media war ensued with the two exchanging insults.

Trump has appeared on several TV shows and movies for guest appearances. He generally appears as himself.

==Political Positions==

Donald Trump announced his desire to run for president as the Republican nominee. He is pro-life, supported a 25% tariff on Chinese goods, and wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/pro-life-donald-trump-would-eliminate-dept-of-education-impose-25-tax-on-china-imports-if-president/ PRO-LIFE DONALD TRUMP WOULD ELIMINATE DEPT OF EDUCATION, IMPOSE 25% TAX ON CHINA IMPORTS IF PRESIDENT, Breitbart.tv, February 9, 2011]</ref> Trump gave a speech at the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/trump-at-cpac-points-to-white-house-run/ Trump at CPAC points to White House run, The Daily Caller, February 10, 2011]</ref> He said he would end [[ObamaCare]], and he is against gun control.

He has been criticized for his substantial contributions to [[Democrat]] lawmakers; the majority of those lawmakers are located in the states he resides in: New York and Florida. In comparison to his wealth, the amount donated since 2008 is a measly $25,000. <ref>[http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Donald-Trump-calls-nations-leaders-stupid-people-and-blood-sucking-politicians/8104644 Donald Trump calls nation's leaders 'stupid people' and 'blood-sucking politicians', OTRC, April 30, 2011]</ref> Trump likely spends that amount in one-hour, of a two-hour private flight from New York to Florida.

Trump has also questioned the eligibility of Obama's presidency, in light of the ongoing questions surrounding his birth certificate<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280533 Trump: Obama spending millions to hide his past, WorldNetDaily, March 28, 2011]</ref>.

He dropped out of the race, however.

==Quotes==
* "This country is going to hell."
* "We have no leader in this country.” <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-karlrove-gop-birther/2011/04/22/id/393742 Trump: I'd Just Take Libyan Oil, NewsMax, April 22, 2011</ref>
* "Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people," and "It's just very, very sad..."
* "I'm Obama's Worst Nightmare"

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.trump.com Official website]
* [http://shouldtrumprun.com/ Should Donald Run? Polling]
* [http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/04/trump-explains-conversion-on-abortion.html Trump explains his pro-life conversion]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trump, Donald}}

[[Category:Celebrities]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Rick Perry

2011-08-06T17:00:09Z

JDWpianist: Undo revision 897934 by AggiePride (talk)rv vandalism

{{Officeholder
|name=Rick Perry
|image=Rick Perry.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Anita Thigpen Perry]]
|religion=Methodist
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Texas
|terms=December 21, 2000-Present
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|succeeded=
|former=n
}}
}}

'''James Richard "Rick" Perry''' (b. 1950) has served as the [[Republican]] Governor of [[Texas]] since December 2000, when he succeeded then-Governor [[George W. Bush]] and was elected to full four-year terms in 2002 and 2006. He easily won an unprecedented third term in November 2010, after defeating by a wide margin the [[RINO]] Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the GOP primary in March.
==Career==
A former Democratic state legislator who became a Republican in 1989, Perry was elected to a full term as governor in 2002, which he served, and then reelected to another full term in 2006 with only 39 percent of the vote. Previously he served as the agriculture commissioner (1991-1999), reflecting his background as a college graduate with a degree in animal science.
==Controversies==
He was much criticized concerning his attempt in early 2007 to mandate by executive order the [[HPV vaccine]] for young girls as a condition of entering school. Defiant, Perry then felt he had no choice but to sign a bill overriding his mandate because it had been passed by a huge majority in both houses of the legislature.

He was criticized by the ''Dallas Morning News'' for traveling to Turkey in early June 2007 to give a speech to a "secret forum" on the topic of [[federalism]], which is not even a topic on which Perry has any established expertise.<ref>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-perry_31tex.ART.State.Edition1.43b926a.html</ref>

On June 15, 2007, Perry vetoed nearly 50 bills in one day. He also asked that legislators quit wasting their time and start passing more conservative bills, especially restricting freedom of movement for radical homosexual activists, in order to prevent harm to young people from their vile propaganda.<ref>http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/138969.html here</ref>.

House Bill 2006 would have added protections to property owners facing eminent domain proceedings and it was vetoed.

In 2009, Perry drew fire for numerous statements that suggested Texas' legal right to secede from the union if it wanted to, a long-discredited legal interpretation which was the main argument of the terrorist [[Republic of Texas]] movement.<ref>[http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/17/0417gop.html "Governor says Texas is one state that could leave union, though he's not pushing it"]</ref> While such statements were viewed with favor by the Texas Republican party and helped him win the 2010 gubernatorial election, it is unclear whether they will come back to haunt his 2012 election prospects.

His prayer rally scheduled for August 5, 2011 has been strongly (and with questionable legal grounds) attacked by the left as a violation of the separation of church and state.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/opinion/how-to-respond-to-rick-perrys-response.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp "How to respond to Rick Perry's 'Response'"]</ref> True, however, is that Perry's tithing and charitable giving combined make up a paltry 0.5% of his salary, as investigative reporting by the Houston Chronicle has shown.<ref>[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/new/7607414.html "Perry puts faith on display but offers little for collection plate"]</ref> His office's response to this story was "he refuses to talk about his faith."

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.governor.state.tx.us/ Official Website]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Perry, Rick}}

[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Texas Governors]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Tea Party Movement

2011-08-06T16:59:39Z

JDWpianist: Undo revision 897941 by AggiePride (talk)rv vandalism

The '''TEA Party Movement''' (TEA is a backronym for Taxed Enough Already) is an ongoing, nationwide mainstream movement of [[grassroots]] protesters, encompassing millions of individuals and thousands of self-organizing groups, all united in accomplishing a single goal: returning [[Conservative|fiscal responsibility]] and limited government to the [[United States]] through the exercise of political [[activist|activism]].<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/15/morning-bell-the-tea-party-movement/ Morning Bell: The Tea Party Movement], heritage.org, April 15th, 2009.</ref> The main focus of the TEA Party Movement is a rebuke of outrageous mandates, overspending and a [[radical]] agenda by an out of touch federal government with values similar to King George III (see [[Boston Tea Party]]).<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24073/ What the Tea Parties Are About], April 16, 2009.</ref> 

=== Beginnings ===
The birth of the Tea Party Movement is often mistakenly traced to February 2009; however, while [[Rick Santelli|Rick Santelli's]] famous impassioned speech on CNBC was perhaps the most visible spark that ignited Tea Party gatherings across the nation, the movement's genesis was in progress long before that notable day in early 2009.<ref>Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578332725182228.html Birth of a Movement], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 29, 2010.</ref> One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a "Tea Party 2007" to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government. It is likely the movement was in gestation for years, in the hearts and minds of American citizens concerned about the path down which [[progressive]] policies have been taking the United States of America, and its emergence has been called [[Main Street]] America's indictment against the ruling class.
<ref>Doug Mainwaring. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/13/tea-partys-inception-a-rebirth/ MAINWARING: Tea Party's inception a rebirth], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', August 13, 2010.</ref> The rallies are promoted as protests of the [[generational theft]] of public tax monies, the tremendous extensions of United States Federal debt and authority, the apparent restructuring of the Federal government with the intent to contravene the system of checks and balances for which the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] provides, and the attempt, which some movement leaders say has been in progress for several decades, to sacrifice [[liberty]] for permanent dependency.

The Tea Party Movement held its first scheduled nationwide protest on April 15, 2009, a day that became known as the [[Tax Day Tea Party]].<ref name="WSJ">[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html Tax Day Becomes Protest Day], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', April 15, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/thousands-anti-tax-tea-party-protesters-turn-cities/ Thousands of Anti-Tax 'Tea Party' Protesters Turn Out in U.S. Cities], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> In the spirit of the [[Founding Fathers]] [[Boston Tea Party]], the rallies have used themes from the [[American Revolution]] and also adopted the "American Tea Party Anthem," a song first performed during a March 21, 2009 Orlando, Florida Tea Party that drew over 4,000 people.<ref>Michelle Malkin. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/ Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows], February 21, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://newsblaze.com/story/20090323074552zzzz.nb/topstory.html "Tea Party" Song Becomes YouTube Hit]. ''Newsblaze'', March 23, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrea Shea King. [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/asking/2009/04/14/american-tea-party-anthem-singer-lloyd-marcus-this-whole-thing-is-rush-limbaughs-fault/ American Tea Party Anthem Singer Lloyd Marcus: "This whole thing is Rush Limbaugh’s fault."], ''Big Hollywood'', April 14, 2009.</ref> [[Dick Armey]] of [[FreedomWorks]] is one of Washington's principal supporters of the Tea Party movement.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516136,00.html Dick Armey to Speak at Atlanta Tea Party], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> [[Glenn Beck]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Sarah Palin]], and many others have encouraged and participated in aspects of the movement.

Impetus was given to the movement when radio talk-show host [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticized the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] on January 27, commenting, "This 'porkulus' bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades."<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus], WSJ.com, January 29, 2009.</ref>

On February 9, a Cape Coral woman named Mary Rakovich led a small protest outside President Barack Obama's townhall meeting in Fort Myers, [[Florida]].<ref>[http://www.news-press.com/article/20090211/OBAMA/90210068 Those outside Harborside in Fort Myers had plenty to see, say], ''The News-Press'', February 11, 2009.</ref><ref>Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html?KEYWORDS=tea+party+movement A Tea Party Manifesto], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', August 17, 2010.</ref> Then in late March of 2009, faced with the prospect of heavy fines from the city for not having the proper permitting or insurance, Mary Rakovich moved forward with future protests but with the backing of national organization ''FreedomWorks''. Rakovich said ''FreedomWorks'' offered to provide the insurance per the city's rules.<ref>[http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/504707.html?nav=5011 Tea party finds new life, broadens cause], cape-coral-daily-breeze.com, March, 31, 2009.</ref>

The first anti-spending protest, organized by Liberty Belle, occurred in [[Seattle]], Washington on February 16, 2009.<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/04/dozen-ring-liberty-belles-sound-800.html A 'Dozen' Ring Liberty Belle's Sound, 800 Cities Ring-Back], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', accessed April 18, 2009.</ref><ref>Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds. [http://www.pjtv.com/video/Pajamas_TV/Tea_Party_Protests%3A_Mesa%2C_Seattle%2C_Denver_%28Michelle_Malkin_and_Glenn_Reynolds%29/1406/ Tea Party Protests: Mesa, Seattle, Denver], PJTV, February 16, 2009.</ref> Another protest was held the following day, held in [[Denver]] on February 17,<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/18732002/detail.html President Signs Massive Stimulus In Denver], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref> and a protest in Mesa, [[Arizona]] on February 18 brought 500 protesters.<ref>Gary Grado, Sonu Munshi, Hayley Ringle. [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135640/ More than 500 protest Obama's arrival], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref>

===Shout Heard 'Round the World===
The Tea Party Movement gained support when on February 19, on live [[Television|TV]], [[CNBC]] reporter [[Rick Santelli]] argued about the [[bailout]]s and shouted, "The government is promoting bad behavior."<ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/02/rick-santelli-tea-party.html Transcript of Rick Santelli's speech], February 19, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701 Rick Santelli's Shout Heard 'Round the World], CNBC.com, February 19, 2009.</ref> Standing in the middle of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Santelli declared that America needed "a new kind of tea party," so that citizens can express their discontent with "the government's support of fiscal irresponsibility."<ref>Jennifer Rubin. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mr-president-turn-back-while-theres-still-time/ Mr. President: Turn Back While There’s Still Time], ''Pajamas Media'', February 20, 2009.</ref><ref>Matt Drudge. [http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Rick+Santelli+-+The+Rant+Heard+Round+the+World/4419854.html Rick Santelli - The Rant Heard 'Round the World'], streetinsider.com, February 19, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago>Andy Roesgen. [http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/TeaParty Protesters Gather for Self-Styled Tea Party], myfoxchicago.com, February 27, 2009.</ref> With the help of ''DontGo'', ''Top Conservatives on Twitter'' (TCOT), ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'' (SGP), ''The American Spectator'', ''Americans for Tax Reform'', ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', and ''The Heartland Institute'', the Chicago Tea Parties were scheduled to happen nationwide on February 27, 2009.<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/23/the-chicago-tea-party-is-on/ The Chicago Tea Party is on!], February 23, 2009.</ref>

==February 27th Tea Parties==
Americans across the country gathered in 50 cities to protest the newly-passed Stimulus Bill of 2009.<ref>[http://www.tcotreport.com/Talking_Points.htm Talking Points and Theme for the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', February 24, 2009.</ref> Over 30,000 people made it to this event.<ref>Teri Christoph. [http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/video/video/show?id=2488056%3AVideo%3A24070& SGP.TeaParty], ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref> Many at the event were upset over the economic stimulus packages and [[bailout]]s for [[Wall Street]] pushed through by both [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] and President Obama's administrations.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|- style="background:#ccc; text-align:center;"
! Location !! Sponsors<ref>[http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=page&page-id=68 Schedule of American Tea party Protests (with Sponsors)], February 27, 2009.</ref> !! Details
|-
| Atlanta, Georgia || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || A reported 300 to 400 protesters gathered outside the Georgia Capitol in protest of a $787 billion recovery bill.<ref name="georgia">[http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/02/27/budget-debate-launches-new-tea-party/ Budget debate launches new tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/71521/ Tea Party from Atlanta], pajamasmedia.com, February 17, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Chicago, Illinois]] || Don'tGo<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/19/chicago-tea-party/ Don'tGo Movement: Pledge to Have a Representation at Chicago Tea Party], February 19, 2009.</ref> || Approximately 300 people braved the 25 degree cold and wind in Chicago.<ref name="illinios">[http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/ BREAKING - Chicago Tea Party (Pictures) UPDATED Now With Video!], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/27/the-birth-of-a-new-revolution/ The Birth of a New Revolution], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>
|-
| Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas || Americans for Prosperity,<ref>[http://www.redcounty.com/texas/2009/02/the-tea-parties-were-successfu/ The Tea Parties were successful - here's the proof], February 23, 2009.</ref> TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo, Dallas County Young Republicans || A "Texas-sized Tea Party" of 300 or more Texans met in Fort Worth, protesting big government and taxes.<ref name="fortworth">[http://txtcot.ning.com/video/tea-party-09-made-the-world Tea Party '09 made the world news], February 27, 2009.</ref> One sponsor, TCOT, collected over 800 signatures during the event.<ref>[http://txtcot.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tea-party-09 Tea Party '09], February 28, 2009.</ref>
|-
| Denver, Colorado || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || At the East Capitol Steps, 100 "[[Atlas Shrugged]]" fans braved cold temperatures for a "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" to protest the [[Obama Administration]]'s [[bailout]] plan.<ref name="dcolorado1">[http://coloradoindependent.com/23026/ayn-rand-stars-at-denver-stimulus-tea-party-protest Ayn Rand stars at Denver stimulus ‘tea party’ protest], ''Colorado Independent'', February 28, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcolorado2">[http://colorado.newsplatoon.com/2009/02/24/denver-tea-party/ Denver Tea Party], [[Colorado]], February 24, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Houston, Texas]] || TBD || Large groups, not entirely made up of Republicans, tried to create a modern day version of the Boston Tea Party.<ref>[http://houstontps.org/?page_id=163 Houston Tea Party Society, In the News, Audio, Video], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.khou.com/video/topstories-index.html?nvid=352345&shu=1 Houston's Tax Day tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Washington, D.C.]] || Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Conservatives Coalition, The Heartland Institute || The American Tea Party made some noise outside the White House.<ref name="dc_examiner">[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-American-Tea-Party-40442172.html DC Tea Party thrown at the White House], ''The Washington Examiner'', February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.freedomworks.org/petition/iamwithrick/index.html 2009 Taxpayer Tea party], February 28, 2009.</ref> Several hundred taxpayers showed up at the DC Tea Party protest in Lafayette Park,<ref name="michellemalkin">[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/scenes-from-the-tea-party/ Scenes from the D.C. Tea Party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcfreedomworks">[http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/video-from-the-dc-tea-party Video from the DC Tea Party], ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', February 28, 2009.</ref> including "Joe the Plumber."<ref name="hotair">[http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/joe-the-plumber-at-dc-tea-party-no-one-on-the-hill-gives-a-rip-about-you/ Joe the Plumber at D.C. Tea Party: No one on the Hill gives a rip about you], ''[[Hot Air]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref>
|}

== Scheduled Rallies ==
[[Image:Headnew.jpg|right|380px|right|Tax Day Tea Party poster]]
=== Tax Day Tea Party ===
: ''Main Article: [[Tax Day Tea Party]]''

==== 2009 ====
Success from the Chicago Tea Parties on February 27, as part of a concerted nationwide effort, led to the Tax Day Tea Party rallies held on April 15, 2009. Following the Chicago Tea Party protests, a group called ''Americans for Prosperity'' of [[North Carolina]] began implementing plans for a "Tax Day" Tea Party rally in Raleigh on the tax filing deadline.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref> Leading up to the Tax Day Tea Parties, the events were organized and promoted by volunteers, activists, and [[Political action committee]]s across the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-co-sponsoring-taxpayer-tea-parties-ac</ref> By taking advantage of online viral [[marketing]] to get the word out,<ref name="investorsnews">[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=470054&Ntt=tea+party 'Tea Party' Protests In 35 Cities], March 2, 2009.</ref> the speed and scope with which the Tax Day Tea Party protests were organized can be attributed to the use of [[Twitter]] [[TCOT Report|#TCOT feeds]],<ref>[http://tcotreport.com/ TCOT Report], ''[[The TCOT Report]]''.</ref> on [[blog|blogs]],<ref>Marc Ambinder. [http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/tea_parties_pajamas_and_mediaevent_symbiotics.php Tea Parties, Pajamas, and Media/Event Symbiotics], ''The Atlantic'', February 25, 2009.</ref> and the social networking [[Web site]] [[Facebook]].<ref name="facebook">[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/04/going-galt-and-the-next-tea-party-wave/ “Going Galt” and the next Tea Party wave], [[Michelle Malkin]], March 4, 2009.</ref>

President Obama is seen to have responded to the tea parties with requested budget cuts of $100 million on April 20, 2009.<ref name="rushlimbaugh">[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042109/content/01125107.guest.html Obama Responded to Tea Parties with $100 Million in "Budget Cuts"], RushLimbaugh.com, April 21, 2009.</ref> Rush Limbaugh contended, "I'm sure they've got internal polling data that shows these tea parties are successful and these tea parties are a problem. So they're responding to the tea parties here. That's all this is." According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey on April 20, 2009, the poll found that fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans had a favorable view of the tea parties held nationwide, including 32% who said their view of the events were "Very favorable." Thirty-three percent (33%) held an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties. Fifteen percent (15%) were not sure.<ref name="rasmussenreports">[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees 51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees], ''Rasmussen Reports'', April 20, 2009.</ref>

==== 2010 ====
The Tea Party Patriots<ref>http://www.TeaPartyPatriots.org</ref> announced a milestone in the Tea Party movement: 2 million people attended the April 15 Tea Party events across the country in 2010, and 2,000 groups are now voluntarily affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots through its [[Web site]].<ref>PR Newswire. [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100429.DC96062&show_article=1 Tea Party Numbers Released: 2 Million, 2 Thousand], ''Breitbart'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>Greta Van Susteren. [http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/tea-parties-on-tax-day/ Tea Parties on Tax Day], ''GretaWire'', April 16, 2010.</ref> Recent polls have shown that 48% of voters believe their views are reflected more closely in the values of the Tea Party movement than in the views of President Obama.

=== Independence Day ===
: ''Main Article: [[Independence Day Tea Party]]''

The same organizations decided to repeat their performance on [[Independence Day]] (July 4, 2009). Even more people attended; the largest such rally was held on the grounds of the Southfork Ranch (scene of the [[television]] series ''Dallas '), in [[Plano]], [[Texas]], which drew 37,000 attendees. The themes that organizers and participants sounded at these events were much the same as were those at the Tax Day events: advocacy of limited government, decrying of high levels of taxation, and refusal to countenance plans for [[socialism]] and especially socialized [[medicine]].

=== Labor Day ===
Several organizations also organized Tea Parties on [[Labor Day]], once again sounding the same limited-government, low-tax, and anti-socialistic themes. Those organizations that did not plan such events often referred people to those that did.

=== September 12 March on Washington ===
: ''Main Article: [[September 12 March on Washington]]''

[[File:Gadsden_snake.jpg|250px|right]]The largest TEA Party event thus far has been the September 12 March on [[Washington, DC]]. This was an event organized initially by the FreedomWorks Foundation, but nearly all Tea Party organizations decided to participate in this event, primarily by chartering buses and registering people for transportation to Washington. FreedomWorks estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons attended, and they base that estimate on the number of persons who responded when their Master of Ceremonies asked all attendees within earshot to send the text message "Freedom" to a designated five-digit telephone number. However, the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' estimates attendance at as many as a million persons, on the basis of eyewitness accounts and aerial-photographic evidence.<ref name=dailymail>Gardner D, "[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html A million march to US Capitol to protest against 'Obama the socialist']," ''The London Daily Mail'', September 14, 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009.</ref> Estimates of total attendance are difficult to obtain, primarily because the size of the crowd far exceeded the estimates by the event planners, with the result that many attendees were never able to get within earshot of the stage or even the sound system, and the temporary sanitary facilities were hopelessly jammed, with fifty persons standing in line to use each portable "necessary."

=== Operation: Can You Hear us Now? ===
TEA party demonstrations have targeted local and national media outs across the country to oppose massive government spending. In a press release, the movement was led by FaxDC in about 100 cities across the U.S. on September 17th. <ref>[http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/10/tea-party-movement-denounces-media-corrupton/ Tea Party Movement Denounces Media Corruption], Lookingattheleft.com, October 19, 2009.</ref> [[Rush Limbaugh]] has previously spoke for the need for such media targeted TEA protests.

* NBC studios in Burbank
* CNN in Atlanta and
* Affiliate stations of NBC, ABC and CBS
* The New York Times
* Los Angeles Times
* Other prominent newspapers.
[[File:Canyouhearusnow.jpg|350px]]

===TEA Party Movie===
''TEA PARTY: The Documentary Film'' was released Thanksgiving Day 2009, is a documentary of five grassroots activists. The story line ''"from home town rally goers and rally organizers to national activists taking part in the 912 Taxpayer March on Washington."'' The theme is about principles, a call for a return to constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint at the Federal level. [http://www.teapartymovie.com/ TEA Party the Movie]

===Pink Slips Campaign===

''Main Article: [[Pink Slips campaign]]''

Organized in part by Joseph Farah from [[WorldNetDaily]], they had a goal of sending each and every member of Congress more than 5,000,000 pink slips.
 
Each pink slip reads '''YOU ARE BEING PUT ON NOTICE''' and

*government health care
*cap and trade
*"hate crimes"
*any more spending

''"If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election"''

As of November 2009, 8 million pink slips have been sent to Congress at a cost of $29 each <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117136 True grass-roots effort? The 'pink slips' campaign, WND.com, November 25, 2009]</ref>

== Noteworthy achievements ==
=== Elections ===
* The first Tea Party activist to win a special election for a state assembly seat was [[Dean Murray]] in Long Island.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586821,00.html Meet the First Tea Party Activist to Be Elected Into Office], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 19, 2010.</ref>
* The most stunning victory credited to the Tea Party Movement, specifically to the [[Tea Party Express]], was the surprise nomination of [[Sharron Angle]] over the establishment favorite [[Sue Lowden]] as the Republican candidate for the Senate seat of [[Nevada]].
* The Tea Party Movement is credited with helping to elect [[Senator]] [[Scott Brown]] in an upset for the seat formerly held by the late [[Ted Kennedy]].
* For the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]] endorsed 50 candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives; 31 of 50 Tea Party challengers won their elections.<ref>[http://www.electiondayteaparty.com/ Election Day Tea Party 2010], ElectionDayTeaParty.com, a project of the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]].</ref>

=== Education ===
* The Tea Party Movement has exposed the [[progressive]] agenda and its significant correlation with the failings of higher education in America.<ref>''Our universities haven't taught much political history for decades. No wonder so many progressives have disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates.'' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704631504575531913602803980.html Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement], by Peter Berkowitz, ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 16, 2010.</ref> {{Cquote|Neither [[professors]] of [[political science]] nor of [[history]] have made a priority of instructing students in the [[Founding Fathers|founding principles]] of American [[Constitutional Republic|constitutional government]]. Nor have they taught about the contest between the [[Socialism|progressive vision]] and the [[Limited government|conservative vision]] that has characterized [[American Government Lecture Two|American politics]] since [[Woodrow Wilson]] helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] had become [[obsolete]] and hindered [[democratic]] reform. ... They do little to teach about [[Federal republic|self-government]]. They certainly do not teach about the [[virtue|virtues]], or [[quality|qualities]] of [[mind]] and [[character]], that enable citizens to shoulder their political responsibilities and prosper amidst the opportunities and uncertainties that [[freedom]] brings. Nor do they teach the beliefs, practices and associations that foster such virtues and those that endanger them. ... [America's] [[University|universities]] have produced two [[Generation|generations]] of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental [[American]] [[Principle|principles]], even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.}}

== Themes ==
The Tea Party Movement began with a protest against two aspects of current public policy:

# Excessive taxation
# Special privilege

[[Rick Santelli]] specifically cited the mortgage [[bailout]] policies of early 2009 as a prize example of the government doing special favors for certain classes of voters, in return for their continued support, and also of the "moral hazard" in which such policies inevitably place anyone who "buys on time," i.e., buys any sort of asset, from a home appliance to a parcel of [[real estate]], using borrowed money.

As the movement has progressed, it has begun to sound broader themes, which one may best summarize as:

# Self-responsibility
# Self-autonomy
# Limited government
# A requirement that government live within its own means, just as individuals must live within theirs
# Capitalism
# Freedom of all varieties of production and trade
# Respect for the [[United States Constitution]]

== Characteristics ==
=== Autonomy of local organizers ===
Most organization of Tea Parties and similar events is local. Typical of the movement is the Morristown Tea Party Organization ([[Morristown]], [[New Jersey]]), which has a five-member board of trustees and about fifty dedicated volunteers who handle operations, communication, and logistics without assistance or direction from any regional or other organization. State-wide coordinating bodies do exist (for example, New Jersey Tea Parties United), but local organizations are responsible for most of their activities, fund-raising, and legal functioning. In this regard, the Tea Party Movement is similar to the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America, which never seeks to dictate to individual churches how they must conduct their affairs.

=== Individual comportment and deportment ===
Event participants, and especially event planners, are urged to comport themselves in a manner respectful of the rights and feelings of others. Organizational leaders consciously endeavor to distinguish their movement from many [[liberal]] protest movements, which often characterize themselves by rude behavior, [[vandalism]], and even physical assaults against their opponents. Any person who persistently suggests that Tea Party Movement participants engage in activities remotely similar to this may usually consider themselves excluded, and in some cases organizers have summoned law-enforcement authorities to deal with provocative behavior by attendees at planning and other meetings.

=== Symbols ===
[[File:Gadsden_flag.png|200px|right]]By far the most prominent symbol at Tea Parties is the [[Gadsden Flag|Gadsden]] [[Rattlesnake (American symbol)|Rattlesnake Flag]].<ref>''Heraldric'': Or a rattlesnake sable and or coiled as to strike, facing sinister, on a bed of grass vert; motto "Don't Tread On Me"</ref><ref>[http://www.gadsden.info/Tea-Party.html Gadsden Flag at Tea Party Protests]</ref> The ''[[American historical flags|Come And Take It]]'' Flag has also appeared most notably at the September 12 March on Washington. Tea Party participants have almost always used home-made and home-decorated signs and other artifacts, in sharp contrast to the uniform, professionally printed signs carried at [[liberal]] demonstrations.

Most of the signs bear lampoons of the most highly publicized Obama Administration policies, from "Czars" to socialized medicine; moreover, Barack Obama is not the only target of criticism, the [[MSM]] has also been challenged in some rallies, both for their failings in covering the Tea Party Movement and also for what most participants regard as a collective decision by Mainstream Media organs to function as ''de facto'' government and/or [[Democratic Party]] as organs rather than the objective and disinterested commentators that they pretend to be.

Some of the signs that have been seen and photographed at these events have provoked cries of outrage from Tea Party Movement opponents, alleging bad taste, e.g. a picture of Barack Obama with the square mustache affected by [[Adolf Hitler]] and bearing the caption "I've Changed," and a sign bearing the message "Bury ObamaCare with [[Edward M. Kennedy|Kennedy]]." After the liberal Mainstream Media quickly blamed conservatives and even [[Rush Limbaugh]], some research was done to find the true source of the Hitler poster. It was later uncovered that the provocative Hitler signs were from a group of [[Leftist|far-left]] [[Lyndon LaRouche]] supporters, as they were infiltrating the Tea Party rallies as a means to spread their extreme visions.<ref>Seton Motley. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/12/nbc-cnn-msnbc-all-assign-communist-larouches-obama-hitler-poster-conse NBC, CNN and MSNBC All Assign Communist LaRouche's Obama-Hitler Poster to Conservatives, Limbaugh], ''NewsBusters'', August 12, 2009.</ref>

=== Demographic profile ===

A Quinnipiac Poll conducted in March 2010 found that thirteen percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group containing more women than men. 49% told pollsters they voted for [[Barack Obama]] in 2008, while only 44% voted for [[John McCain]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436 Quinnipiac Poll, Question 50e, March 2010.]</ref> Despite these findings, the [[White House]] has been linked to efforts to label the Tea Party as [[racist]].<ref>http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-linked-to-fraudulent-racist-tea-party-video/</ref>

== News Coverage ==
[[File:MSMbyTEA.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Attitude of Tea Party Movement participants toward four MSM outlets]]

By far the most industrious news organization that has covered the Tea Party Movement is the [[Fox News Channel]], especially with commentators [[Neil Cavuto]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Greta Van Susteren]]. Coverage of the Tea Party events by the [[Mainstream Media]] has lacked both quantity and quality. The three traditional broadcast networks ([[ABC]], [[CBS]], [[NBC]]) have attempted to falsely discredit these events as corporate-sponsored or sponsored by the [[Republican Party]] and other conservative or reactionary groups, and have generally censored the movement by refusing to cover major events.<ref name=baker>Baker B, "[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/04/16/abc-cbs-nbc-try-discredit-tea-party-protests ABC, CBS and NBC Try to Discredit 'Tea Party' Protests]," ''NewsBusters'', 16 April 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009. Baker does a side-by-side comparison of coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties and of several pro-immigration rallies held on 1 May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats] Supporters of the Tea Party Movement receive death threats from socialists and liberal extremists, but the [[MSM]] looks the other way and refuses mention the story.</ref>

===Uncivil Language===
Several news anchors working for [[CNN]] and [[MSNBC]] used uncivil language to describe Tea Partiers and coined the phrase "teabaggers," which is a crude term used to slur conservatives. Additionally, President Obama used the crude term as an off-color connotation attempting to mock Tea Party Movement leaders and participants across the nation. During an interview with the ''[[New York Times]]'', Barack Obama described the people of the Tea Party Movement as "the teabag, anti-government [extremists]."<ref>Michael Patrick Leahy. [http://www.tcotreport.com/obamaslur.html In Pep Talk to Democrats Yesterday, Obama Used Crude Term to Slur Conservatives], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', November 8, 2009.</ref>

===Death Threats===
Tea Party organizers are not controlled or funded by the Republican Party or any established interest group. However, ''[[FreedomWorks]]'' and [[Dick Armey]] are well known supporters of the Tea Party Movement, and thus receive dozens of threatening and harassing calls and E-mails each day. ''FreedomWorks'' provided ''U.S. News & World Report'' with some of the recordings of the threatening calls, which include physical threats and profanity aimed at the group, Tea Party spokesmen and even [[conservative]] talkers. ''"You guys better watch it,"'' says one caller. ''"Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate [[Rush Limbaugh|Rush [Limbaugh]]] and [[Sean Hannity]],"'' said another. ''"Those two guys are dead."''<ref>Paul Bedard. [http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats], ''U.S. News & World Report'', August 25, 2010.</ref>

===Commentary===
[[Gordon Anderson]] wrote:
{{Cquote|Corruption and abuse of power seek to cloak themselves under the banner of security interests in order create elite ruling classes that are a threat to the security of those they are sworn to protect and the constitutions they are supposed to uphold. Citizens in both the United States and the European Union are witnessing the fruits of their lack of vigilance. This is a core underlying concern and reason for the rise of the “Tea Party” movement and its European counterparts. Such movements will continue arise as leaders of the so-called “free world” continue to violate the major principles of sound governance and hide corrupt actions under veils of secrecy.<ref>http://forum.newworldencyclopedia.org/index.php/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-balance-of-political-principles/</ref>}}

===Polls===
In late 2009, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed 41% of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement, and 24% had a negative view . By contrast, only 35% of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28% have a positive view of the Republican Party.<ref> see [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/ "WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans," ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 16, 2009]</ref>

{{Conservatism}}

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

==See Also==
* [[Tax Day Tea Party]]
* [[Independence Day Tea Party]]
* [[9/12 March on Washington D.C.]]
* [[Boston Tea Party]]
* [[Tea Party Organizations]]
* [[Tea Party Express]]
* [[Tea Party Patriots]]
* [[Contract From America]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/ National Tea Party Unity Convention], TEA Party Nation (TPN).
* [http://www.onlinetaxrevolt.com/march/ The Online Tax Revolt March], Choose an Avatar and March Online to Washington.
* [http://taxdayteaparty.com/ Tax Day Tea Party]
* [http://www.reteaparty.com/ America's Re-Tea Party]
* [http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ Tea Party Patriots]
* [http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html Don't Tread on Me]: Gadsden Flag History.
* [http://ccsrwm.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/Berlet%20paper.pdf Demonizing the Tea Party Movement by Chip Barlett (Berkeley)] PDF

===Music Videos===
{{main|Tea Party Movement Videos}}

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2H8xHFXC8U&feature=player_embedded American Tea Party Anthem], by Lloyd Marcus
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT54cGEv7Nk I am America], by Krista Branch
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvuimX2bjI&list=QL Rise Up], music by Jeremy Hoop from ''[http://www.teapartymovie.com/film.html The Tea Party Movie]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfH46DTAkxo When You're Holding a Hammer (Everything Looks Like a Nail)], by Kyle Hill and Bryan Glover
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3CIPnQUOK0 Tip of the Spear], music by Phil Cuomo and Phil Valentine from the motion picture ''[http://philvalentine.com/AnInconsistentTruth.htm An Inconsistent Truth]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG38P92wQlc Don't tread on me], by the band ''[[Metallica]]'' ([http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Don%27t-Tread-On-Me-lyrics-Metallica/1F9C85C5B25CB6FF4825688D0034190D Lyrics])

[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]

Obama birth certificate controversy

2011-08-06T16:59:00Z

JDWpianist: Undo revision 897930 by AggiePride (talk) rv vandalism

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|right|350px]]

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''', former community activist and senator from Illinois and current [[President of the United States]], was allegedly<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82033]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref><ref>[http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu report]</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/farber/Obama_birth_certificate/2009/04/06/200320.html]</ref><ref>Obama's [[African]] grandmother Sarah Hussein Obama says Barack was born in her presence in Kenya.[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes, Israeli News, October 12, 2008][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth, WND, October 23, 2008][http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b58_1225645143 Audio Conversation Link]</ref> born in [[Honolulu]] on Aug. 4, 1961. A growing movement contends that since Obama had refused to release his long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii and since documentary evidence indicates that he may have been born in [[Kenya]], Obama is ineligible to serve as president according to the U.S. Constitution. Obama's supporters and a large swath of the [[Democratic Party]] state that Obama was born in Hawaii, and is therefore a "[[natural-born citizen]]"; they have dismissed outright the claims of the "birthers" - as they derisively call them - as a non-issue or another conspiracy theory.

== Supposed Birth Certificate Release ==
With the news of Jerome Corsi's Worldnet Daily published book Where's the Birth Certificate? scheduled to be released on May 18, 2011 and with Donald Trump calling for Obama to release his long form birth certificate, it was finally released on April 27, 2011. Within days on its release it was being called a forgery.

Despite efforts by people to down play the reports of Adobe Illustrator layering and to explain them away, the anomalies on the birth certificate increased daily. The flawed forgery techniques were examined and re-examined by novices and experts alike. It would be hard for someone to explain the many multiple errors in the purported "authentic" birth certificate.

Jerome Corsi said that he was alerted by a mole in the department of records in Hawaii, three weeks before the birth certificate was to be released, that a forged certificate suddenly appeared in the record book. Corsi and Farah of Worldnet Daily held back releasing the information because they wanted Obama to release a forgery and then prove that it was a fake which would be a crime.

Despite the overwhelming bizarre and inaccurate information contained on the supposed birth certificate the mainstream media and even Conservative news outlets refuse to question the document's authenticity.

Corsi stated during a radio interview on May 24, 2011 that a scanning expert is going to file a criminal complaint with the FBI that the birth certificate released by the president is a bad forgery.

==United States Constitutional requirements==
The [[United States Constitution:Article II|Constitution]] states explicitly who is to be eligible for the office of president. The physical requirements are found in Article II, Section 1:
:''No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.''
==What is "Natural Born"==
The Founding Fathers in 1790 interpreted "natural born" as:
:''The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States''<ref> see [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227 Naturalization Act of 1790]</ref>

See [[Natural-born citizen]]

==See also==
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama birthplace controversy]]
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]

== External links ==

* [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138293 NPR Archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'] Also includes clips from newspapers from various African countries claiming Obama to be born in Kenya. Via WorldNetDaily.
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]

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

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category: Politics]]

Rick Perry

2011-08-06T12:07:30Z

JDWpianist: /* Controversies */

Terry Eagleton

2011-07-19T20:04:25Z

JDWpianist: clean up refs and trim longer quotes

Terry Eagleton

2011-07-19T19:53:35Z

JDWpianist: Add some context

'''Terry Eagleton''' is a British literary theorist, author, professor, and critic. He is currently teaching English and creative writing at Lancaster and [[Notre Dame University]], and has previously taught at [[Oxford University]].<ref>[http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=authC2D9C28A1123b1D819TsK1844CB4 uni bio]</ref>

While writing from a Maxist perspective in his early work, some of Eagleton's more recent books have dealt with theological themes from a Catholic perspective, and he has been a longtime critic of [[Postmodernism]], for example in the book ''On Evil'' (2010) and ''The Illusions of Postmodernism'' (2006).

During four days of talks at [[Yale University]]'s Terry Lectures in April 2008, he spoke of a fictitious person, '''Ditchkins''', which is derived from the merger of the two last names [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] and [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] (Etymology: '''''D'''''aw'''''kins''''' + H'''''itch'''''e'''''ns'''''). In these lectures Eagleton often caricaturizes the two famed writers and outspoken [[atheist]]s, routinely drawing [[Christopher Hitchens]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] as one single, formidable debate opponent who lamentably commits various [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]].
<blockquote>
*"...someone like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, a couplet I will henceforth reduce to the solitary signifier Ditchkins..." (April 1, 2008 ''Christianity Fair and Foul'')

*"It would, I think, do no harm to Ditchkins comically intemperate politic against religion, indeed it would reinforce it, to approach the subject as the liberal rationalist that he is rather to subject us as he does to the kind of indiscriminate condemnation which is neither liberal nor rational. It would be greatly to the benefit of Ditchkins' moral integrity and intellectual honesty, I think, to intersperse his mildly monomaniac diatribes on the topic—we’re speaking here of monotheism versus monomania, if you like—with the odd glancing allusion, I mean even if he relegated it to some shy footnote nestling beneath his text.<ref>Continuation of talk in order to understand quote's entire context: To say, you know, the work in alleviating human suffering which Christianity and other faiths have carried out for centuries among the wretched of the earth or its efforts in the cause of global peace or the readiness that some religious types have shown to lay down their lives for others. All those clergy who have given their lives as martyrs not least in Latin America in the struggle against U.S. supported autocracies. Acknowledging all this would not necessarily mean for Ditchkins sustaining a fatal wound in the ideology. Many western liberals are, as I've said before, careful to distinguish their criticisms of so-called Islamism from criticisms of Islam itself. They're really [not] so scrupulous however when it comes to home-based faiths like religion. It seems not to be the case that liberalism begins at home. I live in Ireland and the Irish have been shamefully abused and exploited by the Roman Catholic Church in many tediously familiar ways. I won't go through them, but the way the Irish are perhaps the least aware of the way they have been exploited by the Catholic Church is the fact that they have not really been offered given a version of the gospels which took in even the slightest effort to reject for even half decent civilized person so like a lot of people they have been able to buy their atheism or agnosticism on the cheap. And this is a form of deprivation against which one ought properly I think to protest even if it’s a more subtle and less important form of deprivation than being locked up life by psychopathically sadistic nuns for having born a child out of wedlock justifiably bad odor in Ireland today that people sometimes cross the street when they catch sight of a Catholic priest approaching. In the old days it used to be a landlord. Yet the cruelties and stupidities, which the Irish church has perpetrated don't prevent me from recalling how without it generations of my own ancestors in Ireland would have gone unschooled, un-nursed , un-consoled, and unburied. One of my own forebears in late 19th century Ireland—father Mark Eagleton—got into hot water with his Bishop for denouncing the local landlord from the pulpit but I supposed Dawkins wouldn't take kindly to the case required political caricature characteristics can be genetically transmitted permissible but this does seem to be somewhat of an example of it.</ref> (April 3, 2008 ''The Limits of Liberalism''<ref>video timestamp range 41 minutes 00 seconds to 45 minutes 45 50 seconds</ref>)

*"Another familiar mistake by the Ditchkins of this world" (April 8, 2008 ''Faith and Reason'')

*"[[Moral relativism]] is an attempt to defuse conflict among other things. And so among other things, I think is, [[multi-culturalism]]. Multi-culturalism is extraordinarily coy of calling other people's beliefs errant nonsense, or unmitigated garbage. There are huge amounts of garbage around the place that we need to name for what it is. One of the most admirable aspects of [[Christopher Hitchens|Chris Hitchens]]'s ''[[God is not great]]''—a superbly stylish and well-argued book—is that Hitchens believes religion is disgusting and has absolutely no qualms about saying so. I mean he may be right or wrong about that, but he's properly unafraid to announce it and to take the consequences of it, including getting snagged off by me, his old comrade. [*Eagleton smiles*]" (April 10, 2008 ''Culture and Barbarism''<ref> video timestamp range 29 minutes 45 seconds to 30 minutes 49 seconds</ref>)<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/terrylecture/eagleton.html "Faith and Fundamentalism: Is Belief in Richard Dawkins Necessary for Salvation?", April 1, 3, 8, 10, 2008] </ref>
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Eagleton, Terry}}
[[Category:Academics]]

User:JDWpianist

2011-06-14T21:23:54Z

JDWpianist: add quote

{{userboxtop|JDWpianist, editor}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{Userbox|red|white|MT-g+ |This user is a [[music theory]] geek.}}
{{Userbox|brown|white|MH-g+ |This user is a music history geek.}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Stieler_Portrait_Ludwig_van_Beethoven.jpg|45px]]|'''This user is writing his dissertation on [[Beethoven]]. You can ask him anything!'''}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Johann_Bach.jpg|45px]]|'''This user plays [[Bach|Bach's]] [[Well-Tempered Clavier]] daily'''<ref>That's not an exaggeration either!</ref>.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Hello everyone! I'm a classical musician, teacher, and doctoral student (PhD in Musicology) living in [[Vienna]], [[Austria]]. I'm happy to be here, making contributions (at least while procrastinating from working on my dissertation) to topics in which I have a special interest:

*'''[[Music]]''' (Composers, [[Piano]], [[Orchestra]], String Quartet, [[Opera]], Choral Music, Music Theory, Music History, Orchestration, Musical Semiotics, Ethnomusicology, Hymnology, [[Jazz]], [[Rock music|Rock]])

*'''[[Austria]]n culture, history, and politics'''

*'''[[Vienna]]'''! An astounding place.

*'''[[German language]]'''

*'''[[Southern Baptist Convention|Southern Baptist]] culture and history'''

If you have any suggestions or substantial issues with my edits, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to discuss them. And if I ever don't reply or edit for a few days, it means that I've stopped procrastinating.

'''UPDATE (5-16-2010):''' I've decided that previous differences of opinion were not worth "taking my ball and going home," and have appreciated the encouragement I've since received from various people. That being said, this is a moot point at the moment, since between fatherhood, work, and writing, my wiki-editing time is more limited than ever. Philosophical discussions here have been interesting, but I don't anticipate getting involved in any here again.

The principles behind my writing and edits are simple: truth, clarity, verifiability, and reasonableness.

[[/Sandbox|My Sandbox]]

==Leo Treitler on certainty and truth==
{{cquote|It is not at all necessarily the same to be certain of something as it is to regard something as being true. There are all sorts of things--matters of fact or feeling or action--about which we may be certain although they may not be judged either true or false. That is mainly because our judgements about them are contingent upon our experience and present circumstance, while true propositions are those that we expect to hold in all circumstances.}}
"The Power of Positivist Thinking" (1989)

==[[Mozart]]'s ''[[Die Zauberflöte]]'', or The Magic Flute==
Here's a fantastic Youtube clip of the "Three Boys" from Mozart's Magic Flute. In one of the great paeans to [[The Enlightenment]], the three boys in this opera (technically a ''Singspiel'') sing about a peaceful future free of superstition and ruled by reason. It's a shame that 200 years later, we're still not there yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1km_1_SDVU

This clip is from a legendary 1983 performance by the [[Munich]] opera, with the incomparable Lucia Popp singing the role of Pamina.

Opening Text: 
''Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden'' 
''Die Sonn' auf goldner Bahn.'' 
''Bald soll der Aberglaube schwinden,'' 
''Bald siegt der weise Mann.'' 
''O, holde Ruhe, steig hernieder,'' 
''Kehr in der Menschen Herzen wieder;'' 
''Dann ist die Erd' ein Himmelreich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich.'' 

Soon, heralding the morning 
The sun will shine forth on its golden path. 
Soon superstition shall vanish, 
Soon the wise man shall triumph. 
O sweet repose, descend, 
Return to the hearts of men; 
Then Earth will be a realm of Heaven, 
And mortals will be like Gods, 
And mortals will be like Gods.

After this introduction, they encounter Pamina, who is on the verge of suicide. They reproach her for this unnatural and immoral act, and convince her to go with them to see her lover Tamino.

==A Word to Students about Wikis==
It is my sincere belief that students who follow the links on this website are already showing a great deal of curiosity. A wiki article can be a good place to satisfy one's desire to learn, but in this editor's opinion is even better as a jumping-off point for further learning.

The reason why an encyclopedia requires sources, and why wiki administrators ideally are very strict about requiring footnotes and extensive bibliographies, is not only to prove that the information is verifiable, but to give the reader a hint as to where more detailed information can be obtained. It is even more ideal if the sources point to books, where a subject can be learned about in depth.

It is both a blessing and a curse that the internet has allowed the curious such quick ways as wikis to read an overview of a given subject. Before these wikis became popular, one needed to go to a library, open an encyclopedia, and then follow the references to other books in the library. This method took much more time than doing an internet search, but the advantage was that the books mentioned in encyclopedia articles were often close at hand in the library, and once one had found a desired book in a particular section of the bookshelves, there were often several related books in the same area. Of course all of this would be too much for the student to take in in one day, but they would know where to look if further research was ever necessary.

Compare this with a wiki, where an article can typically be longer than one in a bound encyclopedia. It's possible to completely satisfy one's curiosity in around ten minutes. The problem is, it gives the illusion of completeness. One needn't go to find books on the subject, because the article seems to say it all at first glance, whereas the library method lets a student know that any subject has a great wealth of information written about it.

As an editor here at Conservapedia, I do my best within my area of expertise to give a reliable ''summary'' of the scholarship on a particular topic, a good entry point for a student who is curious to learn more. I must emphasize though, that all wikis are inadequate: they oversimplify, they contain bias, and there's a great possibility that they contain errors. This is why following the sources is always a good idea. A book on a subject, or a more specialized encyclopedia, will most likely be written by an expert, who has spent his or her life studying the topic they have written about. As with any human, the writer will also have biases, but a bias based on an in-depth knowledge of the subject is preferable to an ideological bias that imposes an oversimplified worldview on every subject they opine on.

An expert can tell you exactly where their knowledge begins and ends, but the ideologue will proclaim himself an expert on everything. The ideologue proves his simplified view of the world with circular logic, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his view as irrelevant. About this kind of person, Geoffery Chaucer had already understood and deflated their arrogance over 600 years ago. Out of the whole cast of ''Canterbury Tales'', he perhaps reserves the most scorn for the character of the Monk, of whom he writes, "And I said his opinion was right; why should he study and lose his wits ever poring over a book in the cloister, or toil with his hands and labor as St. Augustine bids?" <ref>translation by Gerard NeCastro http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/translation/ct/01gp.html</ref> In other words, the Monk did not need to read a book, because he was already correct in thought; he did not need to waste his time fulfilling the church's commandment to do good works and give to charity, because he was already correct in deed.

In summary, don't forget that the brick-and-mortar library is still the ideal place to learn, and that whatever can be found on the internet is still only a tiny fraction of what is out there. Let your curiosity be your guide, and most of all, do not put all of your trust in one website for information.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T20:48:26Z

JDWpianist: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T13:21:22Z

JDWpianist: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */ new section

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T13:15:17Z

JDWpianist: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */ liberal double standard is unbefitting CP. Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen, as is Obama

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest by July 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] has made it more difficult for him to win reelection. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

For the Republican nomination, a sophisticated set of "[[stalking horse]]" candidates and endorsers are being used, as in 2008 when [[Fred Thompson]] and [[Mike Huckabee]] prevented [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. This time Mitt Romney has [[Rick Santorum]], [[Chris Christie]] and probably [[Tim Pawlenty]] on his side ("[[Team Mitt]]"), while [[Newt Gingrich]] likely has on his side [[Mike Huckabee]], [[neoconservatives]], the [[Fox News Channel]], [[WSJ]] and a few pro-life groups ("[[Team Newt]]").
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref>
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]].
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is increasingly popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Polls unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]] seriously; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Not running for office. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref>Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine, <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|-
|[[Fred Karger]]
|Wealth of experience in the private sector, much more than Obama ever had. His homosexuality may which may attract some right-leaning liberals.
|Openly gay, which will not play well the majority of the Republican Party. Supports Gay Marriage.
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-business, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to lose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world! The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

User:JDWpianist

2011-05-14T20:33:19Z

JDWpianist: formatting userboxes

{{userboxtop|JDWpianist, editor}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{Userbox|red|white|MT-g+ |This user is a [[music theory]] geek.}}
{{Userbox|brown|white|MH-g+ |This user is a music history geek.}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Stieler_Portrait_Ludwig_van_Beethoven.jpg|45px]]|'''This user is writing his dissertation on [[Beethoven]]. You can ask him anything!'''}}
{{Userbox-r|black|white|[[image:Johann_Bach.jpg|45px]]|'''This user plays [[Bach|Bach's]] [[Well-Tempered Clavier]] daily'''<ref>That's not an exaggeration either!</ref>.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Hello everyone! I'm a classical musician, teacher, and doctoral student (PhD in Musicology) living in [[Vienna]], [[Austria]]. I'm happy to be here, making contributions (at least while procrastinating from working on my dissertation) to topics in which I have a special interest:

*'''[[Music]]''' (Composers, [[Piano]], [[Orchestra]], String Quartet, [[Opera]], Choral Music, Music Theory, Music History, Orchestration, Musical Semiotics, Ethnomusicology, Hymnology, [[Jazz]], [[Rock music|Rock]])

*'''[[Austria]]n culture, history, and politics'''

*'''[[Vienna]]'''! An astounding place.

*'''[[German language]]'''

*'''[[Southern Baptist Convention|Southern Baptist]] culture and history'''

If you have any suggestions or substantial issues with my edits, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to discuss them. And if I ever don't reply or edit for a few days, it means that I've stopped procrastinating.

'''UPDATE (5-16-2010):''' I've decided that previous differences of opinion were not worth "taking my ball and going home," and have appreciated the encouragement I've since received from various people. That being said, this is a moot point at the moment, since between fatherhood, work, and writing, my wiki-editing time is more limited than ever. Philosophical discussions here have been interesting, but I don't anticipate getting involved in any here again.

The principles behind my writing and edits are simple: truth, clarity, verifiability, and reasonableness.

[[/Sandbox|My Sandbox]]

==[[Mozart]]'s ''[[Die Zauberflöte]]'', or The Magic Flute==
Here's a fantastic Youtube clip of the "Three Boys" from Mozart's Magic Flute. In one of the great paeans to [[The Enlightenment]], the three boys in this opera (technically a ''Singspiel'') sing about a peaceful future free of superstition and ruled by reason. It's a shame that 200 years later, we're still not there yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1km_1_SDVU

This clip is from a legendary 1983 performance by the [[Munich]] opera, with the incomparable Lucia Popp singing the role of Pamina.

Opening Text: 
''Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden'' 
''Die Sonn' auf goldner Bahn.'' 
''Bald soll der Aberglaube schwinden,'' 
''Bald siegt der weise Mann.'' 
''O, holde Ruhe, steig hernieder,'' 
''Kehr in der Menschen Herzen wieder;'' 
''Dann ist die Erd' ein Himmelreich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich.'' 

Soon, heralding the morning 
The sun will shine forth on its golden path. 
Soon superstition shall vanish, 
Soon the wise man shall triumph. 
O sweet repose, descend, 
Return to the hearts of men; 
Then Earth will be a realm of Heaven, 
And mortals will be like Gods, 
And mortals will be like Gods.

After this introduction, they encounter Pamina, who is on the verge of suicide. They reproach her for this unnatural and immoral act, and convince her to go with them to see her lover Tamino.

==A Word to Students about Wikis==
It is my sincere belief that students who follow the links on this website are already showing a great deal of curiosity. A wiki article can be a good place to satisfy one's desire to learn, but in this editor's opinion is even better as a jumping-off point for further learning.

The reason why an encyclopedia requires sources, and why wiki administrators ideally are very strict about requiring footnotes and extensive bibliographies, is not only to prove that the information is verifiable, but to give the reader a hint as to where more detailed information can be obtained. It is even more ideal if the sources point to books, where a subject can be learned about in depth.

It is both a blessing and a curse that the internet has allowed the curious such quick ways as wikis to read an overview of a given subject. Before these wikis became popular, one needed to go to a library, open an encyclopedia, and then follow the references to other books in the library. This method took much more time than doing an internet search, but the advantage was that the books mentioned in encyclopedia articles were often close at hand in the library, and once one had found a desired book in a particular section of the bookshelves, there were often several related books in the same area. Of course all of this would be too much for the student to take in in one day, but they would know where to look if further research was ever necessary.

Compare this with a wiki, where an article can typically be longer than one in a bound encyclopedia. It's possible to completely satisfy one's curiosity in around ten minutes. The problem is, it gives the illusion of completeness. One needn't go to find books on the subject, because the article seems to say it all at first glance, whereas the library method lets a student know that any subject has a great wealth of information written about it.

As an editor here at Conservapedia, I do my best within my area of expertise to give a reliable ''summary'' of the scholarship on a particular topic, a good entry point for a student who is curious to learn more. I must emphasize though, that all wikis are inadequate: they oversimplify, they contain bias, and there's a great possibility that they contain errors. This is why following the sources is always a good idea. A book on a subject, or a more specialized encyclopedia, will most likely be written by an expert, who has spent his or her life studying the topic they have written about. As with any human, the writer will also have biases, but a bias based on an in-depth knowledge of the subject is preferable to an ideological bias that imposes an oversimplified worldview on every subject they opine on.

An expert can tell you exactly where their knowledge begins and ends, but the ideologue will proclaim himself an expert on everything. The ideologue proves his simplified view of the world with circular logic, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his view as irrelevant. About this kind of person, Geoffery Chaucer had already understood and deflated their arrogance over 600 years ago. Out of the whole cast of ''Canterbury Tales'', he perhaps reserves the most scorn for the character of the Monk, of whom he writes, "And I said his opinion was right; why should he study and lose his wits ever poring over a book in the cloister, or toil with his hands and labor as St. Augustine bids?" <ref>translation by Gerard NeCastro http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/translation/ct/01gp.html</ref> In other words, the Monk did not need to read a book, because he was already correct in thought; he did not need to waste his time fulfilling the church's commandment to do good works and give to charity, because he was already correct in deed.

In summary, don't forget that the brick-and-mortar library is still the ideal place to learn, and that whatever can be found on the internet is still only a tiny fraction of what is out there. Let your curiosity be your guide, and most of all, do not put all of your trust in one website for information.

==References==
{{reflist}}

User:JDWpianist

2011-05-14T20:32:01Z

JDWpianist: trim out-of-date userbox

{{userboxtop|JDWpianist, editor}}
{{User Baptist}}
{{Userbox |red |white |MT-g+ |This user is a [[music theory]] geek.}}
{{Userbox |brown |white |MH-g+ |This user is a music history geek.}}
{{Userbox-r |black|white|[[image:Stieler_Portrait_Ludwig_van_Beethoven.jpg|45px]]|'''This user is writing his dissertation on [[Beethoven]]. You can ask him anything!'''}}
{{Userbox-r |black|white|[[image:Johann_Bach.jpg|45px]]|'''This user plays [[Bach|Bach's]] [[Well-Tempered Clavier]] daily'''<ref>That's not an exaggeration either!</ref>.}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Hello everyone! I'm a classical musician, teacher, and doctoral student (PhD in Musicology) living in [[Vienna]], [[Austria]]. I'm happy to be here, making contributions (at least while procrastinating from working on my dissertation) to topics in which I have a special interest:

*'''[[Music]]''' (Composers, [[Piano]], [[Orchestra]], String Quartet, [[Opera]], Choral Music, Music Theory, Music History, Orchestration, Musical Semiotics, Ethnomusicology, Hymnology, [[Jazz]], [[Rock music|Rock]])

*'''[[Austria]]n culture, history, and politics'''

*'''[[Vienna]]'''! An astounding place.

*'''[[German language]]'''

*'''[[Southern Baptist Convention|Southern Baptist]] culture and history'''

If you have any suggestions or substantial issues with my edits, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to discuss them. And if I ever don't reply or edit for a few days, it means that I've stopped procrastinating.

'''UPDATE (5-16-2010):''' I've decided that previous differences of opinion were not worth "taking my ball and going home," and have appreciated the encouragement I've since received from various people. That being said, this is a moot point at the moment, since between fatherhood, work, and writing, my wiki-editing time is more limited than ever. Philosophical discussions here have been interesting, but I don't anticipate getting involved in any here again.

The principles behind my writing and edits are simple: truth, clarity, verifiability, and reasonableness.

[[/Sandbox|My Sandbox]]

==[[Mozart]]'s ''[[Die Zauberflöte]]'', or The Magic Flute==
Here's a fantastic Youtube clip of the "Three Boys" from Mozart's Magic Flute. In one of the great paeans to [[The Enlightenment]], the three boys in this opera (technically a ''Singspiel'') sing about a peaceful future free of superstition and ruled by reason. It's a shame that 200 years later, we're still not there yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1km_1_SDVU

This clip is from a legendary 1983 performance by the [[Munich]] opera, with the incomparable Lucia Popp singing the role of Pamina.

Opening Text: 
''Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden'' 
''Die Sonn' auf goldner Bahn.'' 
''Bald soll der Aberglaube schwinden,'' 
''Bald siegt der weise Mann.'' 
''O, holde Ruhe, steig hernieder,'' 
''Kehr in der Menschen Herzen wieder;'' 
''Dann ist die Erd' ein Himmelreich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich,'' 
''Und sterbliche sind Göttern gleich.'' 

Soon, heralding the morning 
The sun will shine forth on its golden path. 
Soon superstition shall vanish, 
Soon the wise man shall triumph. 
O sweet repose, descend, 
Return to the hearts of men; 
Then Earth will be a realm of Heaven, 
And mortals will be like Gods, 
And mortals will be like Gods.

After this introduction, they encounter Pamina, who is on the verge of suicide. They reproach her for this unnatural and immoral act, and convince her to go with them to see her lover Tamino.

==A Word to Students about Wikis==
It is my sincere belief that students who follow the links on this website are already showing a great deal of curiosity. A wiki article can be a good place to satisfy one's desire to learn, but in this editor's opinion is even better as a jumping-off point for further learning.

The reason why an encyclopedia requires sources, and why wiki administrators ideally are very strict about requiring footnotes and extensive bibliographies, is not only to prove that the information is verifiable, but to give the reader a hint as to where more detailed information can be obtained. It is even more ideal if the sources point to books, where a subject can be learned about in depth.

It is both a blessing and a curse that the internet has allowed the curious such quick ways as wikis to read an overview of a given subject. Before these wikis became popular, one needed to go to a library, open an encyclopedia, and then follow the references to other books in the library. This method took much more time than doing an internet search, but the advantage was that the books mentioned in encyclopedia articles were often close at hand in the library, and once one had found a desired book in a particular section of the bookshelves, there were often several related books in the same area. Of course all of this would be too much for the student to take in in one day, but they would know where to look if further research was ever necessary.

Compare this with a wiki, where an article can typically be longer than one in a bound encyclopedia. It's possible to completely satisfy one's curiosity in around ten minutes. The problem is, it gives the illusion of completeness. One needn't go to find books on the subject, because the article seems to say it all at first glance, whereas the library method lets a student know that any subject has a great wealth of information written about it.

As an editor here at Conservapedia, I do my best within my area of expertise to give a reliable ''summary'' of the scholarship on a particular topic, a good entry point for a student who is curious to learn more. I must emphasize though, that all wikis are inadequate: they oversimplify, they contain bias, and there's a great possibility that they contain errors. This is why following the sources is always a good idea. A book on a subject, or a more specialized encyclopedia, will most likely be written by an expert, who has spent his or her life studying the topic they have written about. As with any human, the writer will also have biases, but a bias based on an in-depth knowledge of the subject is preferable to an ideological bias that imposes an oversimplified worldview on every subject they opine on.

An expert can tell you exactly where their knowledge begins and ends, but the ideologue will proclaim himself an expert on everything. The ideologue proves his simplified view of the world with circular logic, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his view as irrelevant. About this kind of person, Geoffery Chaucer had already understood and deflated their arrogance over 600 years ago. Out of the whole cast of ''Canterbury Tales'', he perhaps reserves the most scorn for the character of the Monk, of whom he writes, "And I said his opinion was right; why should he study and lose his wits ever poring over a book in the cloister, or toil with his hands and labor as St. Augustine bids?" <ref>translation by Gerard NeCastro http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/translation/ct/01gp.html</ref> In other words, the Monk did not need to read a book, because he was already correct in thought; he did not need to waste his time fulfilling the church's commandment to do good works and give to charity, because he was already correct in deed.

In summary, don't forget that the brick-and-mortar library is still the ideal place to learn, and that whatever can be found on the internet is still only a tiny fraction of what is out there. Let your curiosity be your guide, and most of all, do not put all of your trust in one website for information.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-17T15:17:35Z

JDWpianist: fix numbering

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-17T15:16:48Z

JDWpianist:

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe.
:::This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-16T16:05:02Z

JDWpianist: /* Discussion */ fixing redundancy

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-16T14:47:38Z

JDWpianist: Created page with "==Discussion== Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points. #What precisely are you alleging are Ob..."

Austria

2011-04-16T14:33:15Z

JDWpianist: /* Principal Government Officials */ Joseph Pröll has stepped down as Vice Chancellor

{{country
|name=''Republik Österreich''
|map=Austria rel99.jpg
|map2=Austria location.png
|flag=Flag of Austria.jpg
|arms=Arms of Austria.png
|capital=Vienna
|government=Federal parliamentary republic
|government-raw=
|language=German
|president=Heinz Fischer
|chancellor=Werner Faymann
|area=32,377 sq. mi.
|pop=8,332,000
|pop-basis=2007
|gdp=$373.6 Billion
|gdp-year=2007 (estimate)
|gdp-pc=$44,890
|currency=Euro
}}
The '''Republic of Austria''' is a landlocked country in central [[Europe]]. The capital of Austria is [[Vienna]]. The primary language of Austria is [[German language|German]].

==People==
Austrians are a homogeneous people; 91% are native German speakers. However, there has been a significant amount of immigrants, particularly from former Yugoslavia and Turkey, over the last two decades. Only two numerically significant autochthonous minority groups exist--18,000 Slovenes in [[Carinthia]] (south central Austria) and about 19,400 Croats in Burgenland (on the Hungarian border). The Slovenes form a closely-knit community. Their rights as well as those of the Croats are protected by law and generally respected in practice. Some Austrians, particularly near Vienna, still have relatives in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. About 74% of all Austrians are Roman Catholic. The church abstains from political activity. Small Lutheran minorities are located mainly in Vienna, Carinthia, and Burgenland. Small Islamic (immigrant) communities have arisen in Vienna and Vorarlberg.
*Population (2007): 8,332,000.
*Annual growth rate (2007): 0.4%.
*Ethnic groups: Germans, Turks, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnians; other recognized minorities include Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Roma.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 73.6%, Lutheran 4.7%, Muslim 4.2%, other 5.5%, no confession 12.0%.
*Language: German about 90%.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance--99%. Literacy--98%.
*Health (2007): Infant mortality rate--3.6 deaths/1,000. Life expectancy--men 77.4 years, women 82.9 years.
*Work force (2007, 4.2 million): Services--67%; agriculture and forestry--5%, industry--28%.

====Religion====
[[File:Austria Telfs-Moschee.jpg|thumb|left|A Mosque in Telfs, Austria.]]
Since 2000 Austria has experienced some immigration from countries such as Turkey and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which increased the number of Muslims. The Muslim community more than doubled between 1991 and 2001 to 339,000, or 4.2% of the population. Estimates for 2007 indicate that there are approximately 400,000 Muslims in the country. In recent reporting periods immigration has slowed down due to the gradual introduction of a quota system in the late 1990s.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108434.htm U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

According to the 2001 census, membership in major religious groups is as follows: Roman Catholic Church, 74%; Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches (Evangelical Church-Augsburger and Helvetic confessions), 4.7%; Muslim community, 4.2%; Jewish community, 0.1%; Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian), 2.2%; other Christian churches, 0.9%; and other non-Christian religious groups, 0.2%. Atheists account for 12%, and 2% do not indicate a religious affiliation.

According to a poll by the German market research institute FESSEL-GfK conducted in June and July 2007, 81% of respondents state that they belong to a church or religious group. Of that number, 2% attend services more than once a week, 10% attend weekly, 9% attend a minimum of once a month, 26% attend several times a year (on special occasions), and 53% nearly never attend.

The provinces of Carinthia (10.3%) and Burgenland (13.3%) have higher percentages of Protestants than the national average of 4.7%. The number of Muslims is higher than the national average of 4.2% in Vienna (7.8%) and the province of Vorarlberg (8.4%), where industry draws a disproportionately higher number of guest workers from Turkey and the former Yugoslavia.

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government are small organizations with fewer than one hundred members. Among the larger groups is the Church of Scientology, which claims between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents. Other groups termed "sects" include Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic Community, the Osho Movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family.

==Government==
[[File:Heinz Fischer Vienna Oct 2006.jpg|thumb|Heinz Fischer, Vienna, 2006.]]
The Austrian president convenes and concludes parliamentary sessions and under certain conditions can dissolve Parliament. However, no Austrian president has dissolved Parliament in the Second Republic. The custom is for Parliament to call for new elections if needed. The president requests a party leader, usually the leader of the strongest party, to form a government. Upon the recommendation of the Federal Chancellor, the president also appoints cabinet ministers.

The Federal Assembly (Parliament) consists of two houses--the National Council (Nationalrat), or lower house, and the Federal Council (Bundesrat), or upper house. Legislative authority resides in the National Council. Its 183 members serve for a maximum term of four years in a three-tiered system, on the basis of proportional representation. The National Council may dissolve itself by a simple majority vote or the president may dissolve it on the recommendation of the Chancellor. The nine state legislatures elect the 62 members of the Federal Council for 5- to 6-year terms. The Federal Council only reviews legislation passed by the National Council and can delay but not veto its enactment.

The highest courts of Austria's independent judiciary are the Constitutional Court; the Administrative Court, which handles bureaucratic disputes; and the Supreme Court, for civil and criminal cases. While the Supreme Court is the court of highest instance for the judiciary, the Administrative Court acts as the supervisory body over government administrative acts of the executive branch, and the Constitutional Court presides over constitutional issues. The Federal President appoints the justices of the three courts for specific terms.

The legislatures of Austria's nine Bundesländer (states) elect the governors. Although most authority, including that of the police, rests with the federal government, the states have considerable responsibility for welfare matters and local administration. Strong state and local loyalties have roots in tradition and history.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Federal President--Heinz Fischer
*Federal Chancellor--Werner Faymann
*Vice Chancellor--Michael Spindelegger
*Foreign Minister--Michael Spindelegger
*Ambassador to the United States--Christian Prosl
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Thomas Mayr-Harting

===Political Conditions===
Since World War II, Austria has enjoyed political stability. A Socialist elder statesman, Dr. Karl Renner, organized an Austrian administration in the aftermath of the war, and the country held general elections in November 1945. All three major parties--the conservative People's Party (OVP), the Socialists (later Social Democratic Party or SPO), and Communists--governed until 1947, when the Communists left the government. The ÖVP then led a governing coalition with the SPÖ that governed until 1966.

Between 1970 and 1999, the SPO governed the country either alone or with junior coalition partners. In 1999, the OVP formed a coalition with the right wing, populist Freedom Party (FPÖ). The SPÖ, which was the strongest party in the 1999 elections, and the Greens formed the opposition. The FPÖ had gained support because of populist tactics, and many feared it would represent right wing extremism. As a result, the European Union (EU) imposed a series of sanctions on Austria. The U.S. and Israel, as well as various other countries, also reduced contacts with the Austrian Government. After a period of close observation, the EU lifted sanctions, and the U.S. revised its contacts policy. In the 2002 elections, the OVP became the largest party, and the FPÖ's strength declined by more than half. Nevertheless, the OVP renewed its coalition with the FPÖ in February 2003. In national elections in October 2006, the SPÖ became the largest party, edging the OVP. On January 11, 2007, an SPO-led Grand Coalition took office, with the ÖVP as junior partner.

The Social Democratic Party traditionally draws its constituency from blue- and white-collar workers. Accordingly, much of its strength lies in urban and industrialized areas. In the 2006 national elections, it garnered 35.3% of the vote. In the past, the SPO advocated state involvement in Austria's key industries, the extension of social security benefits, and a full-employment policy. Beginning in the mid-1980s, it shifted its focus to free market-oriented economic policies, balancing the federal budget, and European Union membership.

The People's Party advocates conservative financial policies and privatization of much of Austria's nationalized industry. It finds support from farmers, large and small business owners, and some lay Catholic groups, mostly in the rural regions of Austria. In 2006, it received 34.3% of the vote. The Greens won 11.1% of the vote in 2006, becoming the third-largest party in parliament. The rightist Freedom Party traditionally had a base in classic European liberalism. However, after losing much of its support in the 2002 elections and suffering a split, the FPO won slightly more of the vote in 2006--11%--than it did in 2002, due to a populist, anti-immigration theme. The Alliance-Future-Austria (BZÖ) split from the FPÖ in 2005. All the FPÖ's Federal Ministers and most of its parliamentarians joined the BZÖ, and that party formally became the junior partner in the governing coalition. The BZO was unable to draw significant popular support away from the FPÖ, but managed to enter parliament in 2006 with 4.1% of the vote.

===Foreign Relations===
The 1955 Austrian State Treaty ended the four-power occupation and recognized Austria as an independent and sovereign state. In October 1955, the Federal Assembly passed a constitutional law in which "Austria declares of her own free will her perpetual neutrality." The second section of this law stated that "in all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory." The date on which this provision passed--October 26--became Austria's National Day. From then, Austria shaped its foreign policy on the basis of neutrality.

In recent years, however, Austria began to reassess its definition of neutrality, granting overflight rights for the UN-sanctioned action against Iraq in 1991, and, since 1995, contemplating participation in the EU's evolving security structure. Also in 1995, it joined the Partnership for Peace with NATO, and subsequently participated in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia.

Austrian leaders emphasize the unique role the country plays both as an East-West hub and as a moderator between industrialized and developing countries. Austria is active in the United Nations and experienced in UN peacekeeping efforts. It attaches great importance to participation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other international economic organizations, and it has played an active role in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Austria has participated in the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan since 2002. In August 2005, Austria deployed 93 soldiers to the northern Afghan city of Kunduz to help support the parliamentary and provincial elections. Austria has also participated in international reconstruction assistance efforts and has provided about 8.5 million euros since 2002 to combat drugs, to strengthen women's rights and for mine removal.

Vienna hosts the Secretariat of the OSCE and the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Industrial Development Organization, and the UN Drug Control Program. Other international organizations in Vienna include the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, and the Wassenaar Arrangement (a technology-transfer control agency).

Austria traditionally has been active in "bridge-building to the east," increasing contacts at all levels with eastern Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. Austrians maintain a constant exchange of business representatives, political leaders, students, cultural groups, and tourists with the countries of central and eastern Europe. Austrian companies are active in investing and trading with those countries as well. In addition, the Austrian Government and various Austrian organizations provide assistance and training to support the changes underway in the region.

==Economy==
Austria has a well-developed social market economy with a high standard of living in which the government has played an important role. The government nationalized many of the country's largest firms in the early post-war period to protect them from Soviet takeover as war reparations. For many years, the government and its state-owned industries conglomerate played a very important role in the Austrian economy. However, starting in the early 1990s, the group broke apart, state-owned firms started to operate largely as private businesses, and the government wholly or partially privatized many of these firms. Although the government's privatization work in past years has been very successful, it still operates some firms, state monopolies, utilities, and services. The Schüssel government's privatization program further reduced government participation in the economy. The Gusenbauer government will not reverse privatizations, but does not plan to undertake any further privatizations. Austria enjoys well-developed industry, banking, transportation, services, and commercial facilities.

Some industries, such as several iron and steel works and chemical plants, are large industrial enterprises employing thousands of people. However, most industrial and commercial enterprises in Austria are relatively small on an international scale.
*GDP (2007): $373.6 billion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 3.4%.
*Per capita income (2007): $44,890.
*Natural resources: Iron ore, crude oil, natural gas, timber, tungsten, magnesite, lignite, cement.
*Agriculture (1.9% of 2007 GDP): Products--livestock, forest products, grains, sugarbeets, potatoes.
*Industry (31.2% of 2007 GDP): Types--iron and steel, chemicals, capital equipment, consumer goods.
*Services: 66.9% of 2007 GDP.
*Trade (2007): Exports--$156.4 billion: iron and steel products, timber, paper, textiles, electrotechnical machinery, chemical products, foodstuffs. Imports--$155.9 billion: machinery, vehicles, chemicals, iron and steel, metal goods, fuels, raw materials, foodstuffs. Principal trade partners--European Union, Switzerland, U.S., and China.

Austria has a strong labor movement. The Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) comprises constituent unions with a total membership of about 1.2 million--about 31% of the country's wage and salary earners. Since 1945, the ÖGB has pursued a moderate, consensus-oriented wage policy, cooperating with industry, agriculture, and the government on a broad range of social and economic issues in what is known as Austria's "social partnership." The ÖGB opposed the Schüssel government's program for budget consolidation, social reform, and fiscal measures that favor entrepreneurs. However, because of a scandal involving a bank the ÖGB owned, the ÖGB lost much of its political influence in the SPÖ.

Austrian farms, like those of other west European mountainous countries, are small and fragmented, and production is relatively expensive. Since Austria became a member of the EU in 1995, the Austrian agricultural sector has been undergoing substantial reform under the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP). Although Austrian farmers provide about 80% of domestic food requirements, the agricultural contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) has declined since 1950 to about 2%.

Austria has achieved sustained economic growth. During the 1950s, the average annual growth rate was more than 5% in real terms and averaged about 4.5% through most of the 1960s. In the second half of the 1970s, the annual average growth rate was 3% in real terms, though it averaged only about 1.5% through the first half of the 1980s before rebounding to an average of 3.2% in the second half of the 1980s. At 2%, growth was weaker again in the first half of the 1990s, but averaged 2.5% again in the period 1997 to 2001. After real GDP growth of 0.9% in 2002, the economy grew again only 1.1% in 2003, with 2001-2003 being the longest low-growth period since World War II. In 2004, Austria's economy recovered and grew 2.4%, driven by booming exports in response to strong world economic growth, but it declined to 2.0% growth in 2005.

Primarily due to higher growth in Europe and continued export growth, Austrian GDP was a higher-than-expected 3.3% in 2006. Predictions are for the economy to grow 3.1-3.2% in 2007 and 2.5-2.8% in 2008.

Austria became a member of the EU on January 1, 1995. Membership brought economic benefits and challenges and has drawn an influx of foreign investors. Austria also has made progress in generally increasing its international competitiveness. As a member of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Austria has integrated its economy with those of other EU member countries, especially with Germany's. On January 1, 1999, Austria introduced the new Euro currency for accounting purposes.

In January 2002, Austria introduced Euro notes and coins in place of the Austrian schilling. Economists agree that the economic effects in Austria of using a common currency with the rest of the members of the Euro-zone have been positive.

Trade with other EU-27 countries accounts for about 73% of Austrian imports and exports. Expanding trade and investment in the new EU members of central and eastern Europe that joined the EU in May 2004 and January 2007 represent a major element of Austrian economic activity. Austrian firms have sizable investments in and continue to move labor-intensive, low-tech production to these countries. Although the big investment boom has waned, Austria still has the potential to attract EU firms seeking convenient access to developing markets in central and eastern Europe and the Balkan countries.

Total trade with the United States in 2006 reached $12.0 billion. Imports from the United States amounted to $4.3 billion, constituting a U.S. market share in Austria of 3.3%. Austrian exports to the United States in 2006 were $7.6 billion, or 5.9% of total Austrian exports.

==History==
[[File:Austria Wien Schloss Belvedere.jpg|thumb|500px|center|Vienna, Belvedere Castle.]]
Austrian history dates back nearly 2,000 years, when Vindobona (Vienna) was an important Roman military garrison along the Danube. The city grew through the Middle Ages and in 788, the territory that is present-day Austria was conquered by Charlemagne, who encouraged the adoption of Christianity. In 976, Leopold von Babenberg became the first in his family to rule the territory; the Babenberg line of succession lasted until the death of Frederick II in 1246. There was a brief interregnum when the territory was ruled by Otakar II of Bohemia, but in 1276 Rudolf I defeated Otakar II at Dürnkrut and became the first Habsburg to ascend to the throne.

====The Habsburg Empire====
Although never unchallenged, the Habsburgs ruled Austria for nearly 750 years. Through political marriages, the Habsburgs were able to accumulate vast land wealth encompassing most of Central Europe and stretching even as far as the Iberian Peninsula. During the 16th Century, the Ottoman Empire gained strength and in 1529, the Ottoman army surrounded Vienna. The Habsburgs held their ground and the Ottomans retreated, to return again in 1683. This time, Vienna was successfully defended by Polish King [[John III Sobieski|Jan Sobieski III]]. To this day Austrians are still proud of defending their territory from the invading Ottomans.

Habsburg rule in Europe was particularly unsettled in the 18th and 19th Centuries, when various wars were fought over their landholdings. Emperor Charles VI (1711-1740) and his daughter Maria Theresa (1740-1780) ruled the Empire during these tumultuous times. Maria Theresa was only able to take the throne as a result of the Pragmatic Sanction, which allowed a female to ascend when there was no male heir. She became a great reformer within the Empire, advocating many changes, most notably in the educational system. Maria Theresa's son Josef II (1780-1790) continued many of her reforms and he himself has been described as an enlightened absolutist.

In 1848 Franz Josef I ascended to the throne and remained in power until his death in 1916. With a reign spanning from the Revolutions of 1848 to World War I, Franz Josef saw many milestones in Austrian history. The Compromise of 1867 allowed some minor sovereignty to the territory of Hungary and created what became known as the Dual Monarchy. Under the new system, Franz Josef remained the head of state (Emperor of Austria/King of Hungary), but the Hungarians were now permitted to have a parliament and legislate on their own.

The old Habsburg Empire slowly began to deteriorate in the beginning of the 20th Century. This deterioration culminated in the June 28, 1914, assassination of Archduke (and heir to the throne) Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophia. This incident sparked the beginning of World War I and assured the end to the Habsburg domination of Central Europe. In 1919, the Treaty of St. Germain officially ended Habsburg rule and established the Republic of Austria.

====Political Turmoil and the Anschluss====
In the years leading up to the Nazi period, Austria experienced sharpening political strife among the traditional parties, which since 1918 had created their own paramilitary organizations. By the late 1920s and early 1930s, these organizations were engaged in strikes and violent conflicts. Unemployment rose to an estimated 25%. In line with similar trends among other Central European countries, a corporatist and authoritarian government came into power in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss, who abolished existing political parties and Austria's Constitutional Court. The Social Democrats, now excluded from the political process, took up arms, and a brief civil war ensued in February 1934. Austrian National Socialists (NS) launched an unsuccessful coup d'etat in July 1934 and murdered Dollfuss. The Nazi leaders were, however, arrested, tried, and received death sentences. Following this unsuccessful coup, the Austrian President asked an ultra-conservative Christian Social leader, Kurt Schuschnigg, to form a government. Like Dollfuss, Schuschnigg sought to appease his neighbors and, at the same time, obtain support from Britain and France against pressures from Hitler's Germany, but without success due to the authoritarian trends in Austria and Austria's poor image in the West. In February 1938, under renewed threats of military intervention from Germany, Schuschnigg was forced to accept Austrian National Socialists (Nazis) in his government. On March 12, Germany sent its military forces into Austria, an action that received enthusiastic support among most Austrians, and Schuschnigg was forced to resign. He and many other political leaders were arrested and imprisoned until 1945.

====The Holocaust in Austria====
The dissolution of the Austrian Empire and consequent loss of territory following World War I, as well as the political strife of the 1930s, set the stage on March 13, 1938, for Germany's Anschluss ("Annexation") of Austria and the beginning of the Nazi period, the darkest chapter in Austria's history, during which most of the Jewish population of the country was murdered or forced into exile. Other minorities, including the Sinti and Roma, homosexuals, and many political opponents of the Nazis also received similar treatment. Prior to 1938, Austria's Jewish population constituted 200,000 persons, or about 3 to 4 percent of the total population. Most Jews lived in Vienna, where they comprised about 9 percent of the population. Following Anschluss, the Germans rapidly applied their anti-Jewish laws in Austria. Jews were forced out of many professions and lost access to their assets. In November 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht pogrom in Austria as well as in Germany. Jewish businesses were vandalized and ransacked. Thousands of Jews were arrested and deported to concentration camps. Jewish emigration increased dramatically. Between 1938 and 1940, over half of Austria's Jewish population fled the country. Some 35,000 Jews were deported to the Ghettos in Eastern Europe. Some 67,000 Austrian Jews (or one-third of the total 200,000 Jews residing in Austria) were sent to concentration camps. Those in such camps were murdered or forced into dangerous or severe hard labor that accelerated their death. Only 2,000 of those in the death camps survived until the end of the war.

====Post World War II====
At the Moscow conference in 1943, the Allies declared their intention to liberate and reconstitute Austria. In April 1945, both Eastern- and Western-front Allied forces liberated the country. Subsequently, the victorious allies divided Austria into zones of occupation similar to those in Germany with a four-power administration of Vienna. Under the 1945 Potsdam agreements, the Soviets took control of German assets in their zone of occupation. These included 7% of Austria's manufacturing plants, 95% of its oil resources, and about 80% of its refinery capacity. The properties returned to Austria under the Austrian State Treaty. This treaty, signed in Vienna on May 15, 1955, came into effect on July 27, and, under its provisions, all occupation forces departed by October 25, 1955. Austria became free and independent for the first time since 1938.

====Compensation Programs and Acknowledgement of its Nazi Role====
During the immediate postwar period, Austrian authorities introduced certain restitution and compensation measures for Nazi victims, but many of these initial measures were later seen as inadequate and containing flaws and injustices. There is no official estimate of the amount of compensation made under these programs. More disturbing for many was the continuation of the view that prevailed since 1943 that Austria was the "first free country to fall a victim" to Nazi aggression. This "first victim" view was in fact fostered by the Allied Powers themselves in the Moscow Declaration of 1943, in which the Allies declared as null and void the Anschluss and called for the restoration of the country's independence. The Allied Powers did not ignore Austria's responsibility for the war, but nothing was said explicitly about Austria's responsibility for Nazi crimes on its territory. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, greater attention was given in many countries to unresolved issues from World War II, including Austria. On November 15, 1994, Austrian President Thomas Klestil addressed the Israeli Knesset, noting that Austrian leaders "... spoke far too rarely of the fact that some of the worst henchmen of the NS dictatorship were in fact Austrians. .... In the name of the Republic of Austria, I bow my head before the victims of that time." Since 1994, Austria has committed to providing victims and heirs some one billion dollars in total compensation.

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3165.htm]
====references====
<references/>

==External links==

*[http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/printer-friendly.asp?tid=12514&mid= Austria 1938 by Kitty Werthmann]. Eye witness account of Nazi takeover of Austria, and its ways and means.
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Landlocked Countries]]

Apology (Plato)

2011-02-24T20:36:40Z

JDWpianist: /* Quotes */

The '''''Apology''''' (Greek '''''Άπολογία Σωκράτους''''') is an early dialogue by [[Plato]], which recounts [[Socrates]]' defense speech in front of the Athenian assembly. Having been put on trial for impiety and corrupting the young, Socrates refuses to take the charges seriously, instead attempting to convince the court that his style of questioning/teaching is a divine duty. This tactic fails, and Socrates is sentenced to death.

==Quotes==
*"For let me tell you, gentlemen, that to be afraid of death is only another form of thinking one is wise when one is not; it is to think one knows what one does not know." (29a)
*"You have brought about my death in the belief that through it you will be delivered from submitting the conduct of your lives to criticism; but I say that the result will be just the opposite. You will have more critics, whom up till now I have restrained without your knowing it." (39c)

==References==
*Plato, ''The Last Days of Socrates: [[Euthyphro]], Apology, Crito, [[Phaedo]]'', translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant (London: Penguin Books, 1954, 1993).

[[Category: Ancient Greece]]
[[Category: Philosophy]]

Apology (Plato)

2011-02-24T20:25:51Z

JDWpianist: add quotes

The '''''Apology''''' (Greek '''''Άπολογία Σωκράτους''''') is an early dialogue by [[Plato]], which recounts [[Socrates]]' defense speech in front of the Athenian assembly. Having been put on trial for impiety and corrupting the young, Socrates refuses to take the charges seriously, instead attempting to convince the court that his style of questioning/teaching is a divine duty. This tactic fails, and Socrates is sentenced to death.

==Quotes==
*"For let me tell you, gentlemen, that to be afraid of death is only another form of thinking one is wise when one is not; it is to think one knows what one does not know." (29a)

==References==
*Plato, ''The Last Days of Socrates: [[Euthyphro]], Apology, Crito, [[Phaedo]]'', translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant (London: Penguin Books, 1954, 1993).

[[Category: Ancient Greece]]
[[Category: Philosophy]]

Apology (Plato)

2011-02-24T20:22:25Z

JDWpianist: add grk title

Apology (Plato)

2011-02-24T20:20:55Z

JDWpianist: add edition

The '''''Apology''''' is an early dialogue by [[Plato]], which recounts [[Socrates]]' defense speech in front of the Athenian assembly. Having been put on trial for impiety and corrupting the young, Socrates refuses to take the charges seriously, instead attempting to convince the court that his style of questioning/teaching is a divine duty. This tactic fails, and Socrates is sentenced to death.

==References==
Plato, ''The Last Days of Socrates: [[Euthyphro]], Apology, Crito, [[Phaedo]]'', translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant (London: Penguin Books, 1954, 1993).

[[Category: Ancient Greece]]
[[Category: Philosophy]]

Phaedo

2011-02-24T20:20:00Z

JDWpianist: /* References */

The '''''Phaedo''''' (Greek '''Φαίδων''') is a famous dialogue written sometime in the early 4th-century B.C. by the [[Greek]] philosopher [[Plato]].

The dialogue takes place in [[Socrates]]' prison cell, before he is to be executed by drinking hemlock. In it, he seeks to prove the immortality of the [[soul]], the existence of the [[afterlife]], and immorality of [[suicide]]. This has made the piece influential among [[Christian]] [[scholar|scholars]], although the beliefs in [[reincarnation]] and the transmigration of souls are discussed favorably. A great deal of the dialogue is given to discussion of Plato's well-known "theory of forms."

Compared to other Socratic dialogues of Plato, the ''Phaedo'' is written in an unusual form, as the entire dialogue is presented within another dialogue taking place after Socrates' death: that between Phaedo (who was present in the cell) and Ephecrates (who, not having been present in the cell, was eager to hear of Socrates' last thoughts before dying). The main characters engaging in the inner dialogue are Socrates, Cebes, and Simmias.

==Quotes==
*"What a queer thing it is, my friends, this sensation which is properly called pleasure! It is remarkable how closely it is connected with its apparent opposite, pain. They will never come to a man both at once, but if you pursue one of them and catch it, you are virtually compelled always to have the other as well; they are like two bodies attached to the same head." (61b)

==References==
*Plato, ''The Last Days of Socrates: [[Euthyphro]], [[Apology (Plato)|Apology]], Crito, Phaedo'', translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant (London: Penguin Books, 1954, 1993).

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Plato

2011-02-24T20:18:35Z

JDWpianist: /* Early */

[[Image:Raphael.jpg|right|thumb|Raphael's depiction of Plato in '''The School of Athens'''.]]
'''Plato''' was a great [[Greek philosopher]] who lived from 428 to 347 BC. His family name was Aristocles. He was a friend of [[Socrates]] and founded the Academy, where Plato taught his philosophy, which entailed many separate disciplines.
==Influence==
Plato is one of the half-dozen most influential philosophers in world history, and his work is studied today in every philosophy departme
nt.
Plato's most famous work is [[The Republic (Philosophy)|''The Republic'']]. One of Plato's pupils was [[Aristotle]], an equally important philosopher with a very different philosophy.

Although Plato cannot be described as a theist, he influenced the Greek '''neo-Platonism''' from the second and third centuries B.C., which did have a major influence on early Christian teachings.
==Style==
Plato's works are different from the majority of philosophical works in style and structure. He wrote dialogs which combined elements of both Greek tragedy and philosophy. His works are conversational dramas filled with irony and 'hidden' content which only the experienced reader will recognize and understand. And he did not write explicit treatises, instead slowly and indirectly revealing his ideas over the course of dozens of dialogues written across the course of his life through the words of his character.

==Plato's Cave==
[[Image:Plato bust.jpg|left|140px]]
Plato had his character Socrates present the myth of the cave in [[The Republic (Philosophy)|''The Republic'']]. In this myth there are men chained in a cave, with a fire somewhere behind them casting light and shadows on the walls in front of them. They cannot turn their heads and may only gaze upon these shadows. The prisoners establish a primitive social order in which respect is granted to those who can correctly predict which shape the flames random gyrations will next be projected onto the wall. In the myth one of these prisoners is set free, and eventually finds his way out of the cave into the realm of the sun and truth. In Socrates' thought experiment of a myth this freed man is then forced to return to the cave, where he tries to tell his companions of the truth he has seen, which they can only understand as the ravings of a madman.

==The Soul==
Plato had his characters take the existence of the human soul on faith, following the example of Socrates, who believed in the soul because a benevolent spirit spoke directly to his. In the ''[[Phaedo]]'' Socrates tells a myth where only as disembodied souls can we possess true knowledge of the Forms. The soul in a human body cannot obtain true knowledge due to the body's failings and distractions. However, by study of philosophy one can regain the path to the true knowledge of the Forms, and prepare oneself for the realm to come after death.

==List of Works==

===Early===
*''[[Apology (Plato)|Apology]]''
*''Charmides''
*''Crito''
*''[[Euthyphro]]''
*''First Alcibiades''
*''Hippias Major''
*''Hippias Minor''
*''Ion''
*''Laches''
*''Lysis''

===Middle===
*''Cratylus''
*''Euthydemus''
*''Gorgias''
*''Menexenus''
*''Meno''
*''Parmenides''
*''[[Phaedo]]''
*''Phaedrus''
*''Protagoras''
*''[[The Republic (Philosophy)|The Republic]]''
*''Symposium''
*''Theaetetus''

===Late===
*''Timaeus''
*''Critias''
*''Sophist''
*''Statesman''
*''Philebus''
*''Laws''

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Parmenides]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.4literature.net/Plato/ Works by Plato]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/plato_cave.shtml The Challenge of Plato's Cave]
==Further reading==
* Kraut, Richard. ''The Cambridge Companion to Plato'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Plato-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521436109/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259344462&sr=1-26 excerpt and text search]
* Taylor, Thomas. ''Introduction to the Philosophy and Writings of Plato'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Writings-Thomas-Taylor/dp/0554351919/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259344610&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
===Primary sources===
* Plato. The Portable Plato ed. by Scott Buchanan (1977) [http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Plato-Library/dp/0140150404/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259344399&sr=1-23 excerpt and text search]

[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Plato

2011-02-24T20:18:02Z

JDWpianist: /* Early */

[[Image:Raphael.jpg|right|thumb|Raphael's depiction of Plato in '''The School of Athens'''.]]
'''Plato''' was a great [[Greek philosopher]] who lived from 428 to 347 BC. His family name was Aristocles. He was a friend of [[Socrates]] and founded the Academy, where Plato taught his philosophy, which entailed many separate disciplines.
==Influence==
Plato is one of the half-dozen most influential philosophers in world history, and his work is studied today in every philosophy departme
nt.
Plato's most famous work is [[The Republic (Philosophy)|''The Republic'']]. One of Plato's pupils was [[Aristotle]], an equally important philosopher with a very different philosophy.

Although Plato cannot be described as a theist, he influenced the Greek '''neo-Platonism''' from the second and third centuries B.C., which did have a major influence on early Christian teachings.
==Style==
Plato's works are different from the majority of philosophical works in style and structure. He wrote dialogs which combined elements of both Greek tragedy and philosophy. His works are conversational dramas filled with irony and 'hidden' content which only the experienced reader will recognize and understand. And he did not write explicit treatises, instead slowly and indirectly revealing his ideas over the course of dozens of dialogues written across the course of his life through the words of his character.

==Plato's Cave==
[[Image:Plato bust.jpg|left|140px]]
Plato had his character Socrates present the myth of the cave in [[The Republic (Philosophy)|''The Republic'']]. In this myth there are men chained in a cave, with a fire somewhere behind them casting light and shadows on the walls in front of them. They cannot turn their heads and may only gaze upon these shadows. The prisoners establish a primitive social order in which respect is granted to those who can correctly predict which shape the flames random gyrations will next be projected onto the wall. In the myth one of these prisoners is set free, and eventually finds his way out of the cave into the realm of the sun and truth. In Socrates' thought experiment of a myth this freed man is then forced to return to the cave, where he tries to tell his companions of the truth he has seen, which they can only understand as the ravings of a madman.

==The Soul==
Plato had his characters take the existence of the human soul on faith, following the example of Socrates, who believed in the soul because a benevolent spirit spoke directly to his. In the ''[[Phaedo]]'' Socrates tells a myth where only as disembodied souls can we possess true knowledge of the Forms. The soul in a human body cannot obtain true knowledge due to the body's failings and distractions. However, by study of philosophy one can regain the path to the true knowledge of the Forms, and prepare oneself for the realm to come after death.

==List of Works==

===Early===
*''[[Apology (Socrates)|Apology]]''
*''Charmides''
*''Crito''
*''[[Euthyphro]]''
*''First Alcibiades''
*''Hippias Major''
*''Hippias Minor''
*''Ion''
*''Laches''
*''Lysis''

===Middle===
*''Cratylus''
*''Euthydemus''
*''Gorgias''
*''Menexenus''
*''Meno''
*''Parmenides''
*''[[Phaedo]]''
*''Phaedrus''
*''Protagoras''
*''[[The Republic (Philosophy)|The Republic]]''
*''Symposium''
*''Theaetetus''

===Late===
*''Timaeus''
*''Critias''
*''Sophist''
*''Statesman''
*''Philebus''
*''Laws''

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Parmenides]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.4literature.net/Plato/ Works by Plato]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/plato_cave.shtml The Challenge of Plato's Cave]
==Further reading==
* Kraut, Richard. ''The Cambridge Companion to Plato'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Plato-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521436109/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259344462&sr=1-26 excerpt and text search]
* Taylor, Thomas. ''Introduction to the Philosophy and Writings of Plato'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Writings-Thomas-Taylor/dp/0554351919/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259344610&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
===Primary sources===
* Plato. The Portable Plato ed. by Scott Buchanan (1977) [http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Plato-Library/dp/0140150404/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259344399&sr=1-23 excerpt and text search]

[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Apology (Plato)

2011-02-24T20:17:17Z

JDWpianist: Created page with "The '''''Apology''''' is an early dialogue by Plato, which recounts Socrates' defense speech in front of the Athenian assembly. Having been put on trial for impiety and ..."

The '''''Apology''''' is an early dialogue by [[Plato]], which recounts [[Socrates]]' defense speech in front of the Athenian assembly. Having been put on trial for impiety and corrupting the young, Socrates refuses to take the charges seriously, instead attempting to convince the court that his style of questioning/teaching is a divine duty. This tactic fails, and Socrates is sentenced to death.

[[Category: Ancient Greece]]
[[Category: Philosophy]]

Euthyphro

2011-02-24T20:13:07Z

JDWpianist: fix links and italicize titles

'''''Euthyphro''''' (Greek '''''Ευθύφρων''''') is the name of one of [[Plato]]'s early [[Socrates|Socratic]] dialogues. Together with three other of his dialogues - the ''[[Apology (Plato)|Apology]]'', ''[[Crito]]'' and ''[[Phaedo]]'', it forms part of a group of Platonic dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates. In modern times, the group is often published together in a single volume with the title ''The Last Days of Socrates''.

In ''Euthyphro'', Socrates carries on a discussion on the nature of piety with Euthyphro, an acquaintance whom he meets on the steps of the courthouse as he (Socrates) arrives to answer to charges of [[impiety]] brought against him. Socrates discovers that Euthyphro is there in the capacity of a litigant bringing charges against his own father over the death of a laborer in his employ, one who had been retained because of his involvement in the death of a slave. For pressing charges against his father, Euthyphro had been reproached for being impious and it was this which led Socrates to inquiry about the nature of piety.

==The problem of Euthyphro==

In one of the more famous passages in this dialogue, Socrates asks:

:"The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved by the gods."

==Implications of the Problem==

In this context, piety and holiness are interchangable with virtue or goodness.
Socrates is asking Euthyphro whether: (a) the gods love something because it is good, or (b) whether the object is good [[Divine command theory|because the gods love it]].
If we take (a) to be true, then the gods are unnecessary, because the object would be good regardless of their existence.
If we take (b) to be true, then we have two problems: that of continuity and that of arbitrariness. The problem of continuity arises when the gods change their minds and then declare a new moral law that is substantially different from, or perhaps even the opposite of, the previous moral law. An exaggerated example would be if murder or genocide were declared holy and just or even obligatory. The problem of arbitrariness states that the gods just selected some random things and then declared them holy for no real moral reason (as morality wouldn't exist until they did); this obviously raises the question about whether the random things they selected to be holy were really the best things for humanity.
== Atheism and the Euthypro ==

[[Creation Ministries International]] points out that [[atheism]] has problems related to the issues raised by the Euthypro dilemna.<ref>http://creation.com/atheism</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html ''Euthyphro''] Internet Classics Archive on-line version translated by Benjamin Jowett
* [http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/euthyphro/ SparkNotes philosophy study guide on ''Euthyphro'']
* [http://www.theandros.com/euthyphro.html Absurd Wisdom: an Apology for ''Euthyphro'', by John C. Medaille]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Philosophical works]]