Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Democratic Party

2007-04-25T16:20:36Z

Jack: Reverted edits back to more accurate polling information. RCP polls are for Congress overall, not Democrats.

[[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Democratic Party.]]

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats.

The Democrats currently control the United States [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures. <ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. The US Congress currently has a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the PealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]</ref> However, Democrats in the US Congress overall are seen much more favorably and currently have a 54.0% approval rating and a 44% disapproval rating according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted April 12-15, 2007.<ref>[http://pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm]</ref> This is in contrast to Republicans whose approval/disaproval rating stands at 39%/59% respectively.<ref>[http://pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm] </ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the 2008 presidential election; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]].

In 1798 , the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democrat [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 . Madison strengthened America's armed forces and helped to reaffirm American independence by defeating the [[United Kingdom]] in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feeling". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. [[Andrew Jackson]], who signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] <ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by
Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party." <ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref>

[[Franklin Roosevelt]], president during the [[Great Depression]] and [[Second World War]], was a Democrat, as was his successor, [[Harry Truman]].

==Policies and criticism==

It should be noted that the views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform. The same is true of individual Republicans.

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high taxes, higher government spending and a relatively high minimum wage.''[[Citation Needed]]''

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[union|organized labor]]. The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref>, such as Saxby Chambliss' campaign against Senator Max Cleland--a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html "Dirty-Bomb Politics"] Mary McGrory, ''The Washington Post'', 20 June 2002</ref>

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] which claims a long standing opposition to school vouchers <ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> reported Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' saying,
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education." <ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--Environmentalists and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support [[a woman's right to choose]], [[gun control]], [[homosexual civil rights|homosexual marriage]] and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Senator [[Jim Webb]] of [[Virginia]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to [[Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Political Parties]]

Talk:Adultery

2007-04-22T07:32:18Z

Jack: /* Gender Bias */

{{unprotected|April 11th|Ed Poor}}
I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

:And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?

:What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

:: As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

:I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans

::I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.

::And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ruin trust ==
Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gender Bias ==

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

: You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

:Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.

:I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of [[love]] which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.

:As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.

:Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

2007-03-20T03:59:39Z

Jack:

Great article, hope it lasts.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It didn't mention how unlike humans are from apes. Or how in NO WAY are we "related". --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:there it's gone --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

[[user:Conservative|Conservative]], cited sources are not "babble." If you disagree with them, debate it here with people who have studied up on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Give it up [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] he's on a rampage. Lost in his own (very) little world. Pity him. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, you are abusing your SysOp power and are completely gutless to boot. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Will you both please sign onto my post on [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s wall on this very same subject?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Awesome. I love conservative! He really makes this site fun.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 23:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If/when the article becomes unprotected, it would be good if someone could put this article into [[:Category:Mammals]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 23:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-20T02:05:20Z

Jack: /* Liberal Edits by Jack */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-19T15:04:58Z

Jack:

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-19T15:02:00Z

Jack:

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2007-03-19T07:47:56Z

Jack: /* Why do you dislike my references? */

I'm a little confused. I see why many of Undelia's edits were removed, but why the part about Reagan opposing government aid to the poor? Isn't that a component of opposing big government, trying to cut welfare programs that would benefit the poor? I don't think that all of Undelia's edits should have been removed wholesale, since some of what was added seems factually accurate.

== Why do you dislike my references? ==

Why were my edits unceremoniously and completely undone? Most of the edits were adding book citations so that claims were supported by some sort of sources. Does Conservapedia dislike facts and evidence? Or does it just dislike citations to viewpoints that don't harmonize with its own narrow agenda?

The question of whom to credit for the end of communism is a major one for historians and scholars. And there are a lot of scholars (I would say it's an accurate characterization to say most scholars) who disagree with those who credit Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. I would've thought Conservapedia of all places would've appreciated trying to teach the controversy in a fairly even-handed way. Providing references to the "other side" in this debate doesn't strike me as contrary to Conservapedia's purportedly educational mission.

Obviously Conservapedia has its own conservative bias, which it is proud to wear on its sleeve. However, where I'm "biased" is that I'm not satisfied with assertions lacking grounding in sources. But it seems like Conservapedia is undermining its own objective of being "educational" by eschewing sound scholarly practices of documentation, references and -- gasp! -- presenting multiple sides of an issue, all so it can engage in unsubstantiated opinion. Wikipedia, for all its faults, likely would not arbitrarily remove several references and citations. One of their major flags, after all, is for articles with unsourced statements. Such articles appear endemic to Conservapedia, which one could attribute simply to it being so new and experiencing rapid growth, but given the way this particular entry has been butchered by administrators, it looks like unsourced statements might simply be official policy.

You do a great disservice to potential users by not only tolerating but encouraging such slipshod methods of scholarship. More than anything else, this will cause large numbers of people to reject the information in Conservapedia ''prima facie,'' and will lead more people to trust Wikipedia because it at least appears to uphold more rigorous standards. While I haven't prevented students explicitly from using Wikipedia (though I've strongly discouraged its use and urged them to consider its problems as a source), you have me leaning toward banning the use of Conservapedia outright, because the standards appear so low as to not even warrant further discussion.

Also, in simply removing my edits wholesale, I should point out that you removed several minor changes that had no business being expunged. For instance, adding "was born" in the sentence about how "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois ..." Also, I corrected the capitalization of "American president," since "president" (like other titles) should only be capitalized when used as an appositive before a proper name (e.g. President Lincoln, but Lincoln was elected president). See a style guide (Strunk and White, Chicago, etc.) for more on that.

: Please sign your comments if you can, using the signature button, so we know with whom we're speaking. Thanks.

: I did revert this entry because it tried to take credit away for Reagan for the fall of communism. I apologize if other edits were also removed in the reversion (rollback), but such is the nature of the Wiki software.

: We welcome well-supported facts here. We don't censor alternative views. But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well, no. It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit. One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president. Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best. However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations. Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual. It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes. That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you are all too exciteable. This is the '''Conservative''' pedia, not Wikipedia. Go peddle your liberal, and liberal-sourced material elsewhere. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where's your evidence? ==

An interesting approach to documentation and sourcing. You accept a hypothesis (in this case that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War), then refuse to tolerate any alternative explanations, no matter how well grounded. You claim that such "liberal" views require substantiation, and yet, when substantiation for them is offered, you excise the substantiation altogether. I'll note that no documentation whatsoever is offered in support of the hypothesis that Reagan brought the end of communism in Eastern Europe.

I should add that "liberal" is a very misleading and damning characterization of these views, since the thesis that Reagan wasn't responsible for the fall of communism derives more from any number of factors in which Reagan had no bearing whatsoever. The references provided and then unceremoniously removed without explanation explain these in more detail.
For instance, Jan Kubik's work on the emergence of civil society and Solidarity in Poland shows how important the Catholic Church and especially the election of a Polish pope, John Paul II, helped to galvanize opposition in Poland. The pope's first visit to Poland in June 1979 provided a major source of inspiration and rehearsal for the opposition and the blossoming of civil society. The fruits of that emerged in the summer of 1980, when a wave of strikes gave birth to Solidarity, the independent trade union that played a major role in undermining Communist authority in Poland, and also in fostering opposition in other parts of Eastern Europe. You'll note that John Paul II became pope in 1978 and Solidarity emerged in August 1979, both of which occurred long before Reagan became president. Moreover, the work of Solidarity had little support from the United States, or from outside of Poland in general. Much of the limited American support lent to Solidarity (and I place emphasis on the idea that it was limited and had little bearing on Solidarity) actually came from the AFL-CIO, which provided some funding and supplies (things like printing presses). Even though Solidarity was forced underground when Poland came under martial law in December 1981, it continued to exist and function as an illegal organization, and civil society continued to develop beyond it. The reemergence of Solidarity in early 1989 came not as the product of external factors, but rather from a recurrence of the persistent economic problems that dogged the Communist regime throughout its existence. The regime reached out to Solidarity. To the extent that pressures from without even played a role, these would've been marginal, and would have emanated mainly from the Kremlin. But, in truth, even that was negligible, since Moscow did little more than to tell the Polish regime that it was on its own.

Similarly, works by Timothy Garton Ash, Gale Stokes and Vladimir Tismaneanu point to the systemic weaknesses of communism within Poland. Some of the important factors they cite are economic weaknesses and a growing crisis of legitimacy that prevented Communist regimes from persisting in hardline methods of repression. At the same time, these factors also led to the genesis of opposition movements within Eastern Europe (groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the Prayers for Peace in East Germany).

The United States and Ronald Reagan don't receive credit in these explanations not due to pervasive "liberal bias," but rather because these factors that are seen as more important (and I should add as someone who has read widely in the scholarship, these are the most commonly cited explanations for the collapse of communism) and the role of the United States or of Ronald Reagan could only have been peripheral at best. It was limited largely to symbolic acts (such as Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall), but even these symbolic acts were directed more at the West and American constituents than at the people living in Communist countries.

I believe this very point was made in one of the edits that an administrator purged.

To give primary credit to Ronald Reagan or the United States for the end of the Cold War would to engage in staggering ignorance of the domestic and systemic factors that undermined Communist regimes, and to marginalize unfairly the many ordinary people and dissidents in Eastern Europe who helped to bring down communism from within. In addition, Reagan in particular deserves little credit for these developments because he was relatively late to the scene. The systemic factors, and in many cases the opposition movements as well, long predated Reagan's presidency, which had little bearing on them.

Now, call me biased, but I think that offers a very well-developed and -substantiated account of other explanations for the end of communism. Nothing in that strikes me as excessively "liberal." Indeed, the only "liberal" thing about it is that it doesn't engage in the same sort of pooh-poohing of Reagan that blindly credits him without offering substantiation.

If someone cares to offer more substantive reasons (citing references for this explanation would be a welcome change) for why Reagan deserves credit, then this entry and discussion can go somewhere.

But simply asserting that Reagan ended communism because you said so, then placing the onus on critics of this position to refute it using evidence, and then suppressing evidence that contradicts the ''a priori'' thesis/assertion: this doesn't exactly give Conservapedia's entry the ring of truth, or much in the way of credibility for that matter.

It would seem, based on the actions taken with respect to edits on this entry, that Conservapedia's "educational" mission would be more accurately described as disseminating conservative propaganda rather than presenting facts and seeking "truth."

You may castigate me for propagating a "liberal" viewpoint, but my true "bias" is that I like some sort of substantiation for sweeping generalizations and disputed claims. I merely attempted to present the alternate explanations that are mostly widely accepted among experts and scholars. You can criticize those groups for "liberal bias," but as I've made clear, there's nothing inherently liberal in these approaches. Moreover, a better response would be to offer your own facts and sources to support your claims, rather than engaging in knee-jerk censorship of someone who deigns to cite references and offer substantiation.

And your request for a signature is laughable. It has echoes of "Big Brother," and given the fascistic censorship witnessed in this article, I'd rather not risk being unceremoniously blocked for not blindly toeing the party line. The truth may not be determined democratically, but the authoritarian methods on display in Conservapedia have proven no more reliable.

-- "Karol Wojtyla"
::: None of us are perfect, probably all of us have overlooked signing our edits or our discussion at some time or another. But it is common procedure and helpful in discussion. Even months later, it is helpful in reading through a discussion to see who is making what points in what sequence. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I made the edits turning "most" into "some" and "other". The reason being is that it is more accurate to say that than to claim "most historians". There is plenty of literature that supports the claim that Reagan's willingness to meet the Soviets expansion-by-proxy and military buildup forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could ill-afford, and that this helped to break an already-faltering Soviet economy. There is also plenty of personal commentary from citizens of the former Soviet client-states who say that Reagan's opposition to the Communists gave them hope.

Your entry wasn't expunged; your points are still there. Personally, I think they '''are''' valid ones and that you simply overstated the level of agreement amongst historians.

I hope this helps you to understand why I made what I considered to be minor edits. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed, although I'd still like to see some references for the literature that credits Reagan's policies. But I would add that there's substantial agreement, at least among historians who study the Eastern bloc, on the question of whether Reagan's role was that important. Reagan appears very little in that literature, so I'm wondering where the sources/references are that give him so much credit. After all, the Second Commandment says sources must always be credited and cited. We can continue to debate those sources on the discussion page, but I think the bigger point is that there's no widely accepted monocausal explanation for the end of communism, so it would be more appropriate to provide sources for the different theses, and to also expound on those interpretations. In other words, rather than simply saying "Reagan ended the Cold War," someone needs to elaborate on the reasoning behind that. Otherwise, it violates the Sixth Commandment (don't give personal opinions in entries).

:I agree with your central contention - there is no monocausal explanation for the fall of Communism. There were several separate forces that converged to break a flawed system. In fairness, though, I think that if you re-read this article you'll see it is more even-handed than you give it credit for. Most every single acclamation given to Reagan is qualified. And, as I pointed out before, your alternate sources were not deleted.

:I would go so far as to say that, for a Conservative site, it is close to the most balanced article on the site. Perhaps you would like to write an article on the Fall of Communism that explores the other causes? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

My apologies to Dave3172. I wasn't accusing you of censorship. Rather, it was an earlier iteration of this page [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=22986]], which user Aschlafly rolled back wholesale. In that iteration, there were several references to texts supporting some of the alternative explanations for the fall of communism. While Dave3172 is right to note that the fall of communism would warrant an entry unto itself, what seemed more inappropriate was Aschlafly's decision to expunge many book citations (the earlier version was even more substantiated than the current version), with his stated reason:

"But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does."

User Aschlafly refuses to accept that, contrary to his personal opinion, the question of Reagan's credit for the end of communism is, in fact, unresolved. As other users have also tried to indicate, there are a wealth of alternative explanations that don't lend support to the "credit Reagan" thesis. And, at least in scholarly circles, it could be argued that there is substantial agreement that Reagan was not the primary or even a significant factor.

What I think is lacking for this entry, and would be worthy of inclusion on a separate entry for the fall of communism as well, would be some substantiation for the argument that Reagan deserves credit. As the article currently stands, and at least in the various iterations I've seen previously, it hasn't provided any support for this argument, aside from the anecdotal evidence of Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall, the importance of which, I might add, seemed more to bolster Reagan's standing as a Cold Warrior and anticommunist in the West, rather than to make any significant impact on developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain (a point I recall seeing in an earlier, since censored version of this entry).

I'm not the one to provide such documentation. Frankly, in my studies of this question (and it was a subfield for one of my M.A. exams, so I've read in the scholarly literature quite extensively) I'm yet to encounter anyone who has presented a very extensive or, in my opinion, compelling argument for crediting Reagan. I am generally familiar with some of the reasons conservatives have given in support of the "credit Reagan" thesis, which user Dave3172 recounted above. But I have not encountered and cannot think offhand of what sorts of books, articles and other sources might lay out this argument at greater length. I would strongly encourage someone -- anyone -- to present those reasons more lucidly. As a teacher, I want to present my students with as many different interpretations as possible, and with the reasoning behind such arguments, so I can teach them to evaluate claims and sources more effectively. It would only be appropriate to include such material in Conservapedia, and I would think that especially on Conservapedia there would be contributors better able to provide that dimension of the debate.

As it stands, I do agree with user Dave3172 that the Reagan entry is rather even-handed and balanced. And in general I think the two of us are on the same page in terms of what we'd like to see.

But as a matter of course, I think it's always better to have too many references rather than too few. This is especially true for encyclopedias. In my mind, an encyclopedia should serve as a quick reference for basic facts, but also as a mere starting point for finding more extensive treatments of various issues and questions. Even if an editor happens to doubt the credibility of a source, it's better to allow users to know what sources are being used and to enable users to access those sources and make assessments of their credibility for themselves. If only more people learned those skills and the ability to read critically, and with a healthy skepticism, my job as an educator would be infinitely easier.

The real source of my aggravation lies in user Aschlafly's cavalier attitude toward sources and evidence that don't support his personal opinions. And while such attitudes are bound to be endemic on any wiki (whether Wikipedia or Conservapedia), which was part of the stated reason for the launch of Conservapedia, I find it troubling that Aschlafly of all users, as a founder or administrator of Conservapedia (if I understand correctly) is engaging in precisely the same behaviors that Conservapedia's founders deemed so troubling and problematic in Wikipedia. It just strikes me as highly hypocritical for user Aschlafly to be just as guilty of censoring viewpoints with which he disagrees.

-- "KW"

== Evidence that Reagan helped to end the Cold War. ==

I assume this stuff is copyrighted, so I'll just give names and page numbers. These aren't historians, mind you - they're witnesses to history.

Margaret Thatcher on Reagan's impact with ending the Cold War "Statecraft" p. 10-11.
Also included in this passage is testimony from the last Soviet Foreign Minister Alexandr Bessemertnykh.

A quote from Lech Walesa, leader of Solidiarity on the back of Peter Schweinzer's book, "Reagan's War."

I can provide more evidence, if necessary.

By the way, when the Soviet Union imposed martial law on Poland because of Solidarity, Reagan did take crucial action, and the results can not be underestimated. He revoked Poland's most favored nation trading status, which meant Polish goods faced a high tariffs on exports to the US. Most importantly, he banned the sale of oil and gas technologies to the USSR. Both of these actions put tremendous pressure on the Soviets to settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans.

You got that last part absolutely wrong. The Soviet government didn't impose martial law on Poland. The Polish regime of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared it because the alternative was to watch its own collapse and allow Poland to descend into complete chaos. The Soviets were not a factor -- repeat: not a factor -- in the end to the Solidarity crisis. In fact, we now know based on documents in archives in Warsaw and Moscow that have become available since the fall of communism that the Kremlin was prepared to allow Poland to "go its own way" in 1981. This was not Moscow's preference, for obvious reasons, but after Soviet leaders assessed the likely outcome of a crackdown (a la Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979), they ruled out the military option. Some of the reasoning behind this was that Soviet leaders feared the repercussions of intervention, which they surmised would have brought an end to detente. However, equally important was their conviction that the Poles would fight back, and that the Polish Army could not be trusted to remain loyal to the Communist regime in the event of a Soviet invasion. The decision to crack down on Solidarity was left entirely to the Polish leadership. (For more elaboration on this, see Vojtech Mastny's article "The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980-1981 and the End of the Cold War," and Matthew Ouimet's "The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy.")

The irony, of course, was that the West widely believed (rather erroneously, as we now know) that Moscow had been calling the shots in Poland. So, despite the fact that it hadn't ordered the crackdown and resigned itself to the possibility of a non-Communist Poland, the Kremlin still faced the loss of benefits that had come with detente.

I'm also perplexed by your claim that the end of the legal Solidarity movement (and it's much more accurately characterized as an independent trade union and opposition movement than a strike, since hundreds of strikes occurred in this period in Poland) saw the Soviets "settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans." Martial law was about the last thing the Reagan White House would've wanted. Or perhaps the next-to-last thing, since only a direct Soviet invasion of Poland could have been worse from an American standpoint.

However, even if you point to the end of detente and the economic hardships this brought to the Soviet Union as a major causal factor in the fall of communism, it's still debatable how much credit Reagan deserves for that. Many of the moves in that direction, such as the end of American food relief to the Soviet Union, had been initiated by Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and prior to Reagan's presidency. Under Reagan those policies may have been pursued to an even greater degree, though it is likely that, had he won a second term in office, Carter would have followed much the same course (especially if you recall that his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a Pole). Much of the basis for crediting Reagan with the collapse of communism seems to dwell on his outspoken opposition to communism, and to having been in the right place at the right time. Given the array of systemic weaknesses, the developing opposition movements and the long-brewing crises that culminated in East-Central Europe in 1989, and in the Soviet Union over the following two years, it is highly probable that communism would have collapsed roughly when it did regardless of who lived in the White House in the 1980s.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing the verbatim quote from Walesa. A professor said that Walesa gave a talk in Seattle some years ago where one of the audience members asked him if he thought Reagan or Gorbachev deserved the most credit for the collapse of communism. Walesa replied, "No, it was the Holy Father!" by which he meant Pope John Paul II (since Catholics refer to the pontiff as the Holy Father). So from the perspective on someone who obviously "witnessed" (and also shaped) history, you can see what people on the ground thought.

-- "KW"

==McCarthy reference==
Reagan tesitified in 1947 before the HUAC -- even before the Hiss & White episodes; McCarthy didn't produce his list til 1950, and was a Senate Committee. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Flipping through some of the history pages, I see that PraiseTheLard mentioned Reagan's role as head of SAG in blacklisting supposed Hollywood Communists. However, I notice that this was repeatedly removed by other editors.

My question: why? This really happened, and I don't think the facts are in dispute. Thus, shouldn't it be included in an entry on Reagan, especially as it was one of the more notable (or notorious, depending on one's perspective) things he did in the years before he became governor*, and it can be seen as a stepping stone to politics, as well as an early sign of his zealotry as a Cold Warrior.

* Unless, of course, you consider the classic Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) to meet these criteria. But it's already in the entry under miscellanea.

:Why? Yes, Reagan did testify in 1947 regarding subversive communist influence in SAG; Joe McCarthy started his investigations in 1950 of government employees and contractors doing business with government. Now, unlike Wikipedia, we can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, for several months I was in dispute resolution over things like people who died in 1948, 2 years before McCarthy, who nevertheless were victims of McCarthyism. Or all the atomic physicists who ended up on the Hollywood Blacklist. Or McCarthy, who never served in the House, sat on the House Un-America Activities Committee. Now these are quite simply facts any child has access to, nonetheless, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to allow some of this information into the sum total of human knowledge. So unless you can somehow prove that 1947 = 1950, Ronald Reagan in no way shape or form can be said to have any conection with "McCarthyism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

* If you read my comment on the removal more carefully, you'd notice that I never mentioned McCarthy or McCarthyism (I had nothing to do with the edits that included and removed that information, which is why I was questioning the actions of those involved). What I was trying to call attention to (and clearly failed to do so) was why information on Reagan's anticommunist activities, such as his role in blacklisting people in Hollywood for alleged Communist sympathies, was removed. What I suggested ought to have happened was that the incorrect information linking Reagan to McCarthyism could have been removed, but the other information outlining his anticommunist activities in conjunction with SAG and the Hollywood Blacklist should have been retained. Something about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- "KW"

:KW, Thanks for the clarification. There is much confusion regarding the so-called Hollywood blacklist. What you find is (A) deliberate efforts to cite HUAC as the source of the blacklist (B) deliberate efforts and distortions to cite McCarthy as serving on HUAC at the time.

:The simple fact of the matter is (A) the "blacklisted" actors and writers were blacklisted by the MPAA (the same group that issues movie ratings and the Oscars); (B) the US government '''did not''' blacklist the Hollywood actors; (C) McCarthy's Committee, which had nothing to do with the blacklist in the first place, would not possess legal authority to investigate anyway. McCarthy's Committee only had legal jurisdiction to investigate the US Government or government contractors.

:Now, it is argued that some Hollywood films had business relationships with the US Government in the making of films in WWII. Yes, this is true. To that extent, if there were a pretext to investigate Hollywood studios, screenwriters, and actors who were acting as government contractors, why ''didn't'' McCarthy investigate them.

:Needless to say, unravelling the a half century of deliberate distortions and deceptions is messy indeed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:''P.S. Reagans credentials as an anti-Communist aren't really something we need to speculate about; attempts to "link" Reagan to some of the unpleasant aspects of "McCarthyism" is something we need to be concerned about.''

*'''Something our younger members might want to keep in mind, it is totally ''revisionist thinking'' to view the House Un-American Activities Committee, its investigations and Congressman McCarthy as evil. I think the genocide of the Soviet Communist Party, and its leaders are very well documented. So are the hundreds of spies sent to the U.S. It is a proven fact that many true-believers, as opposed to those who were easily mislead or naive, did actively get jobs in the film industry. What you know today as "transparency" didn't exist in the 50's and 60's. Nuclear bombs were new to us, the leader of the Soviet Union announced on TV that they would "bury" us. These are things you need to take into consideration when examining the period.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 19:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Can we limit the speculation and the removal of facts/sources to include unsubstantiated opinion? ==

Someone earlier today inserted a line at the end of the survey of various interpretations of the end of communism to the effect of "Nevertheless, Reagan was the personal driving force behind the fall of communism." Given the multitude of other interpretations presented in this article and elsewhere on the talk page, it seemed inappropriate to add that line as a way of denying the existence of controversy in this debate and asserting a personal opinion as manifest fact. As it stands, and as I reverted it, the article never claimed that any single interpretation was "right." Instead, the main idea (and what I would hope would be more important for an encyclopedia) is that the issue is not clear cut, and to present the basic contours of the debate.

Similarly, I noticed that a user changed the section on the presidential legacy regarding SDI/Star Wars, removing the information about how the principle of atmospheric-based missile defense (the foundation of SDI) has never been tested successfully. Moreover, the same user changed the line that said (and I paraphrase from memory), "Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking." In its place, the new line (again, I paraphrase) said simply that "SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage against the Soviet Union." Any notion that the existence of leverage is disputed was summarily excised.

While I understand that many (most?) of the users of Conservapedia likely believe Reagan to have been the driving force behind the end of the Cold War, and to have though that SDI brought the Soviet Union to its knees and spurred the collapse of communism, I underline that these are only individual opinions. They may be based on certain sources, but they remain interpretations and not cut-and-dry facts. At the very least, there should be documentation and evidence to support these sorts of assertions. But I also think that, given the level of contention over these questions in academic and political debates, a better approach for Conservapedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is to present the controversy and the various sides, rather than unilaterally presenting one perspective as absolute fact.

It's my understanding that this was a major motivation for creating Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, to include viewpoints that were being summarily removed on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting alternative viewpoints, but I think what's essential to give Conservapedia any broad credibility is to not provide '''only''' the viewpoints lacking on Wikipedia, but to present all the viewpoints. If you only want to present certain viewpoints, well, it is called Conservapedia, but you should probably stop claiming to be encyclopedic in nature.

'''**Reagan, while President of SAG, opposed Communist infilteration of the guilds in Hollywood, however he was also instrumental in fighting for actors who were painted by McCarthy's broad brush, and got their names removed. He did just that in helping a young actress, Nancy Davis, who he eventually married.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good observations. With reference to,
::''"Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking."''
:the subtle thing said here is trying to separate "conservatives" from "most analysts", i.e. moderate or manistream. Facts are so-called "conservative analysts" are very mainstream given the subject under discussion. The so-called "moderate analysts", or others this referes to, are journalists and opinion makers, not defense policy analysts. This sort of subtlety needs to be watched for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: But I think you're falsely interpreting a statement that says "many conservatives" to exclude conservatives from or the "mainstream." Perhaps the issue was in the paraphrase I believe the exact language said something to the effect of "many political scientists and historians," or "scholars," or something a bit more specific. But when I said "analysts," I meant this merely as a shorthand for a variety of groups, which included many relevant scholars, and did not mean it in the narrow sense of defense policy analysts. I certainly don't think defense analysts had a monopoly on wisdom or insight regarding Soviet policymaking. We know from documents and materials available after the fact that as much as analysts and observers got right, they also got many things wrong. And this assessment applies equally to academics, scholars, journalists, politicians and opinion makers as it does to defense experts, policy analysts, etc. Likewise, I meant policymaking in a broad sense for the Soviet case, having in mind domestic political and economic policies as much as military and foreign policies. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In fact, here is the verbatim passage: "While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the Soviet Union, most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount."

:: I think you'll agree that the language here is much less problematic. And while there are undoubtedly Reagan supporters in the ranks of political scientists and historians, I think it's accurate to suggest that more of them aren't Reagan supporters than are.

::Anyway, my apologies for having been lazy and not citing the exact passage earlier, which I think was a source of much confusion. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''most political scientists and historians note that...."
:::How about, ''many [or some] political scientists and historians are of the opinion that ...'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am somewhat skeptical of citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction, when quoting Soviet citizens, who were or are a part of that government, being as their vested interest is in denigrating any accomplishments by Reagan. Likewise the part about military service, which I removed, was completely inaccurate, in that it failed to mention that he did indeed enlist, was an officer, and contributed to the raising of millions of 1940's Dollars on behalf of the war effort. Likewise his fighting of the black lists, which his own future wife, Nancy Davis was put on. Cannot the Sysops here block this highly inaccurate and troubling information being listed? It troubles me users cannot contact anyone about this, in a easily identified manner. Someone put up these web pages, it belongs to someone. Someone is ultimately responsible, no? If not, perhaps I need to refer all this BS to the likes of Ed Meese or Mike Deever, for rebuttal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan actually served ''two'' non-contiguous active military stints, if I recall. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Reagan entered military service in 1942 and served for three years in the U.S. Army, for which he made training films, and he was discharged with the rank of captain. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 10:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Reagan states in his 1965 autobiography [http://www.biblio.com/books/28287897.html] he served in the Cavalry, confirmed here [http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25513&page=51 Ronald Reagan, Cavalry Lt/USAAF Capt, FMPU; personnel officer 9th AF]; Peggy Noonan likeqwise cites it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me what was "inaccurate" or "troubling" in saying that Reagan, as head of SAG, was involved in naming members of the film industry on the Hollywood Blacklist? He was involved. He answered questions in HUAC hearings and kept the FBI informed about "disloyal" members of his union. These are facts.[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html] I can't assess the veracity of the statement that Reagan also tried to shield actors victimized by McCarthy, which would certainly make Reagan's a complex and difficult-to-read character.

But the main points to make are 1) nothing in the statement that Reagan played at least a contributing role (by testifying before HUAC, informing the FBI, etc.) in the Hollywood Blacklist is factually inaccurate; 2) if Reagan ''did'' try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis, then it needs to be cited (see the Conservapedia commandment if you're unclear on the reason why); 3) whatever role Reagan may have played in vindicating those unjustly accused by McCarthy, it still doesn't make it any less true to note that earlier he played a part in the anticommunist persecution of individuals who wound up blacklisted in Hollywood.

Also, I find it maddeningly ignorant and offensive to make such a blanket statement as to claim broad skepticism regarding the ability of "citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction," whether quoting Soviet citizens, or in any other context. First, I don't know why the whole "immediately distrust foreigners" is even relevant to this discussion, or to the edits on the Reagan article. Second, ignorance, like wisdom, knows no national boundaries. Americans hold a monopoly on neither. You can love this country and think it's the greatest in the world, but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing the intelligence of non-Americans, or the ignorance of many Americans. Rather than making such a blanket condemnation, try to point to specific examples of bias, ignorance or what have you, instead of speaking in such vague generalizations. -- "KW"

::Ok, so by Reagan giving testimony to HUAC, then a separate non-governmental entity, the Motion Picture Association of America blacklists actors, that makes Reagan "involved". Whereas in fact, the actual involvement of the MPAA is suspect, because it appears to be coincidental that the members of MPAA are the ones who refused to extend contracts, not the MPAA itself.
:::''Reagan did try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis...''
::I beleive you may be misusing the term "McCarthyism here; and can you provide a cite for the specific reference. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

*By the way, HUAC stands for "House Un-American Activities Committee" '''which was an official body of the United States Congress'''. It was Chaired by Congressman Joesph McCarthy, of Wisconson. As for extending contracts, the motion picture studios are the true villians here, in caving into pressure from the Congress. Not excusing Congress's actions but it wasn't the Government refusing the contracts.--[[User:TK|TK]] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You make my point for me. It is ignorant, in the extreme, to give half-answers as "fact" like about Reagan's testimony before the HUAC, without explaining further, his other actions. To ignore, or leave them out is bias indeed. It proves my point, because most anyone from the Untited States, politically involved, knows the story about how Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis!! You are using clearly liberal, left of center sourcing material, and passing it off as fact, just because you provided a source. Go to moveon.org, and you can get those types of "facts". You have a very revisionist view, imo, almost of someone too young to remember, prersonally, the period. It was not considered heinous at that time, to oppose Communist infiltration of the entertainment industry, and while most people did not agree with McCarthy's tactics, they did not oppose the goal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My omission of the story about how Ronald met Nancy was based on ignorance, yes. I didn't know the story behind it, but that doesn't reflect willful or malicious neglect on my part. I couldn't tell you how any president met his wife, which is more a product of my priorities, or "bias," as you term it: I simply don't care much for personal gossip of any sort. There, you know my personal "bias" regarding the matter at hand.

::But, again, if I made an omission, then the correct move on your part is to correct it by '''adding the missing fact, not expunging other facts that don't tell the story you like.''' That's all I requested. I don't profess omniscience, and I'm certainly not an expert on the intricacies of the Reagans' courtship. But since you apparently have knowledge of that and consider it so essential to the story of his involvement with HUAC, then add that to the entry and share your particular wisdom with everyone. Balance is a good thing, and that's what I was trying to urge you to provide. Obviously I want as complete a picture as possible, but I also don't know every side of the story, and I know I don't know.

::And you're right that I don't have personal recollections of the period. However, my age or experience make my contributions no less valid. I don't discount the very real sense of fear and terror that pervaded the era. But while you might consider this a hindrance or claim this forces me into "revisionism," I can respond by saying that your personal experiences and recollections dooms you to your own "bias," in that you evidently feel like you have a stake in the matter, whereas I didn't have anything to gain or lose based on its outcome. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" or more "objective." It's just a way of noting that no one is immune from bias, and that bias takes a number of forms. This, among many other reasons, is why I place such emphasis on including as many different dimensions as possible. Clearly you have a perspective that I don't, but your perspective might cause you to focus on certain things to the exclusion of other factors that seem noteworthy to me. Why not use our different perspectives to mutual advantage? -- "KW"

:::I think you confuse this place for Wikipedia. This is the Conservative version. Therefore like values are tensed more than those which oppose, otherwise what is this place for? I also think you mistake personal things for purely historical ones. I am not making you, personally less valid, however this place is the place for debating your personal ideas, and the failure to go the extra mile and inform the people who will use this as a resource, of the whole story, not a fragment of it. You are using, in my opinion, the same tired liberal sources those of us in the States have grown to mistrust. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Evidently I confused this place for an encyclopedia interested in facts. I see you arbitrarily removed the information about how Honecker could and did ignore Gorbachev's entreaties for reform. The fact that several Soviet troops were stationed in East Berlin was quite ancillary to the issue at question, namely the status of the Berlin Wall. Were, as you (or whoever added the line about the Soviet troops) suggested, Gorbachev to have exercised military pressure on Honecker to reform, he would've ceased to be a reformer. You can't force through those sorts of liberalizing measures through violent and oppressive measures. The French Revolution attempted that, and in ended in the Reign of Terror and, later, with military rule under Napoleon. Your decision to willy-nilly ignore the realities of internal dynamics, both within the Eastern bloc and within individual countries of the bloc, makes your own ''opinion'' regarding the importance of Gorbachev (and what he potentially could have done) to the fall of the Berlin Wall exceedingly groundless and unsubstantiated. Even though the first incarnation of the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 with Soviet assistance, this was what the East German government at the time wanted as well, in order to triage the massive population loss and brain drain of East Germans who went to West Berlin and from there to the West. Those desires held true into 1989, and it was only when popular pressures began to mount within East German for opening the borders that things began to change. Moreover, the fall of the Wall itself was not the product of deliberate policy on anyone's part; on November 9, 1989, the party head in Berlin read (or perhaps misread, as scholars have debated) an announcement on television in somewhat unclear language (if you see a clip of the broadcast, you can even see him looking a bit surprised and what he thought he was reading) to the effect that the border would be opened for private trips abroad, which the East Germans watching on television interpreted to mean the complete opening of the border, prompting thousands to storm the checkpoints and begin tearing down the Wall. In the end, not Gorbachev nor Honecker nor Reagan, for that matter, played a key role in tearing down the Wall. Credit a bureaucrat's vague words and the initiative of the thousands of East Germans who made it so.

::::And I don't know why you keep making thinly veiled illusions suggesting that I'm some sort of foreigner. You keep using that canard to try to discredit me, but it only reflects poorly on you because 1) I'm an American, born and raised, and 2) your implication that anyone who bothers to learn about the other side of an issue (or in this case to pay attention to what was actually happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain rather than accepting a bunch of poorly supported opinions as the gospel truth) must not be American suggests that anyone who's American is also ignorant with respect to the rest of the world. -- "KW"
:::::KW, these are all good points you make above and well researched. However you may be argueing the substance on the page. Let's find somewhere to put all that research in. How about [[German Democratic Republic|East Germany]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Done. It's a fragmentary entry, by necessity, but at least there's the beginnings of an entry. -- "KW"

== Citations from Wikipedia.... ==

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there?

*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''

== Edits ==

I think the reorder is somewhat cumbersome, and not putting most of the information at the top, perhaps? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iran/Contra==
For this edit,
:''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."''
we need (a) a date; (b) source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
----
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted Reagan as uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair in 1988. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. Good research. Now as to specifics, your language "''depicted Reagan as uninformed''" is stated perhaps more precisely as "Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director William Casey, persuaded Reagan...".

*: '''Rob, "uninformed" in government parlance, is not what you think. It means the subordinates did not inform him. Those are raw quotes, which would need re-phrasing. I sent you an email, did you get it? There are lot of things most sane people wouldn't feel comfortable posting about themselves on public pages.''' --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Got it. Yes a private discussion can help facilitate where we wish to go with this and save time. I responded, did you get it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''No, Rob..I haven't reveived anything from you. Did you send it via email through this board? I'll email you, with my IM info.'''

:The two NSDD cited deserves treatment in context, however after Reagan's reelection (and the reestablishment of relations with Iraq) the overture to Iran to sell weapons from Israel was given more focus, as the Tower Commission Report clearly gives detail. Also, feelers were sent prior to the second term regarding contact between Teheran and the hostage takers in Lebenon.

:The language "''dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics''" referes to the use of the Iranian [[Mahatma Ghandi]] and proginator of [[Human Rights]] reforms in Iran, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], use of children to clear minefields.

:A proposal: lets complete a good review of the Iran/Contra affair here, in the Reagan artcle, which then perhaps could be spun off into its separate article with only a summary left behind. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Not from me, Rob! I put up material here, someone takes it, re-compiles it, slaps it back up as their edit, after the same thing was added by me a day or so ago! Is there some commandment about NOT communicating here? You invited participation, yet everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off, never communicating! --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make two observervations: (1) the stuff about it being outed on Nov. 3 1986 (we need to check if that is prior to election day 1986 when the Democrats regained the Senate and were in a position to hold public investigations, or after election day) is well researched, and we can put it in at the point it belongs. (2) The stuff about Iraq is going to need some clarification, because this narrative picks up "after Reagan was re-elected", i.e. after Nov. 84, and his swearing in Jan. 85; NSDD 139, 5 April 1984 is ''prior''. While all this material is extremely (a) valid and (b) relevent, we are writing an historical narrative of events, not doing a hit piece with piecemeal material out of context. So this is what I'd like to discuss, gaining some structure to events.

:::Let me add, as an after thought, all accounts I read all over the web dismiss this all as a "scandal" of a bunch of greedy arms dealers and other assorted low-lifes which either includes Reagan, or Reagan gave his assent to. That POV has been explicitely stated eleswhere. So what we are examining is the motives for Reagan's giving assent to this matter. And beginning with a conclusory premise, that (a) Reagan's just another greedy corrupt Republican (b) this is just more evidence of the currupt aims, motives, and duplicity of Republicans in power and why you can't trust them, will fail. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)==Iraq==

'''Comment on this inclusion''':''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.");''

this may warrant inclusion at some point, and it no way contradicts US policy aims as stated by Henry Kissinger upon the outbreak of the Iran-iraq War in 1981, "All we can do is hope they both loose." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Being old enough to remember this time really good but too old to remember exactly where I heard this: The CIA, in shipments of Iran's weapons, would include "faulty" munitions such as hand grenades that would explode as soon as the handle was released, killing the thrower. Not all, but like 15-20% were "defective". I'll see if I can find a source.
::''primea facia'' this may be faulty; you will recall CIA was not involved in Iran/Contra; and using Israel & private arms dealers is what the matter was all about. Please, do not come here with warrantless, unqualified speculation. Get legitimate source documents first, then bring it to our attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
----
*Reagan said, '''''"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran..."'''''
This is the same problem that confronts President Bush today, i.e. allowing Iran to gain ascendancy over the majority Shia in Iraq, and the region. I'm sorry if this conflicts with journalists and scandalmongers aims to sell newspapers to paint Reagan in bed with the fascist Ba'athists, but this is not a propaganda vehicle, and we are here to write factual biography of Mr. Reagan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly, RobS. In the secular, political world, sometimes the person you end up in bed with, well...the reason you do is just because there isn't room anywhere else, or you are simply too tired to look elsewhere. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So the point here is, the crazies in Iran gaining hegemony in the Gulf needed to be detered (then, as now); then in Reagan's second term the fear that if a militarized Iraq survived the War intact, it might turn it's attention elsewhere, like Kuwait, which it did.

:::What do we know? Journalists blew the story wide open to sell headlines, and partisan Democrats looking to make a scandal, hastened (1) the Gulf War of 1991; (2) the fact that Iran ''still'' isn't an ally, and remains hostile with nuke capabilities. And if Iran hasn't got a nuke yet, they got the money to buy brainpower or an operational bomb from cash starved North Korea.

:::All this so partisans could create a scandal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Welcome to my world. I console myself knowing that sooner or later (usually later) the public gets damned mad, and there is literally political hell to pay. I have been waiting for that now about 7 years. Look at http://newt.org for American Solutions....something is being done, and the ground work being layed. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2007-03-19T07:47:00Z

Jack: /* Why do you dislike my references? */

I'm a little confused. I see why many of Undelia's edits were removed, but why the part about Reagan opposing government aid to the poor? Isn't that a component of opposing big government, trying to cut welfare programs that would benefit the poor? I don't think that all of Undelia's edits should have been removed wholesale, since some of what was added seems factually accurate.

== Why do you dislike my references? ==

Why were my edits unceremoniously and completely undone? Most of the edits were adding book citations so that claims were supported by some sort of sources. Does Conservapedia dislike facts and evidence? Or does it just dislike citations to viewpoints that don't harmonize with its own narrow agenda?

The question of whom to credit for the end of communism is a major one for historians and scholars. And there are a lot of scholars (I would say it's an accurate characterization to say most scholars) who disagree with those who credit Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. I would've thought Conservapedia of all places would've appreciated trying to teach the controversy in a fairly even-handed way. Providing references to the "other side" in this debate doesn't strike me as contrary to Conservapedia's purportedly educational mission.

Obviously Conservapedia has its own conservative bias, which it is proud to wear on its sleeve. However, where I'm "biased" is that I'm not satisfied with assertions lacking grounding in sources. But it seems like Conservapedia is undermining its own objective of being "educational" by eschewing sound scholarly practices of documentation, references and -- gasp! -- presenting multiple sides of an issue, all so it can engage in unsubstantiated opinion. Wikipedia, for all its faults, likely would not arbitrarily remove several references and citations. One of their major flags, after all, is for articles with unsourced statements. Such articles appear endemic to Conservapedia, which one could attribute simply to it being so new and experiencing rapid growth, but given the way this particular entry has been butchered by administrators, it looks like unsourced statements might simply be official policy.

You do a great disservice to potential users by not only tolerating but encouraging such slipshod methods of scholarship. More than anything else, this will cause large numbers of people to reject the information in Conservapedia ''prima facie,'' and will lead more people to trust Wikipedia because it at least appears to uphold more rigorous standards. While I haven't prevented students explicitly from using Wikipedia (though I've strongly discouraged its use and urged them to consider its problems as a source), you have me leaning toward banning the use of Conservapedia outright, because the standards appear so low as to not even warrant further discussion.

Also, in simply removing my edits wholesale, I should point out that you removed several minor changes that had no business being expunged. For instance, adding "was born" in the sentence about how "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois ..." Also, I corrected the capitalization of "American president," since "president" (like other titles) should only be capitalized when used as an appositive before a proper name (e.g. President Lincoln, but Lincoln was elected president). See a style guide (Strunk and White, Chicago, etc.) for more on that.

: Please sign your comments if you can, using the signature button, so we know with whom we're speaking. Thanks.

: I did revert this entry because it tried to take credit away for Reagan for the fall of communism. I apologize if other edits were also removed in the reversion (rollback), but such is the nature of the Wiki software.

: We welcome well-supported facts here. We don't censor alternative views. But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well, no. It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit. One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president. Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best. However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations. Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual. It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes. That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.

I think you are all too exciteable. This is the '''Conservative''' pedia, not Wikipedia. Go peddle your liberal, and liberal-sourced material elsewhere. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where's your evidence? ==

An interesting approach to documentation and sourcing. You accept a hypothesis (in this case that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War), then refuse to tolerate any alternative explanations, no matter how well grounded. You claim that such "liberal" views require substantiation, and yet, when substantiation for them is offered, you excise the substantiation altogether. I'll note that no documentation whatsoever is offered in support of the hypothesis that Reagan brought the end of communism in Eastern Europe.

I should add that "liberal" is a very misleading and damning characterization of these views, since the thesis that Reagan wasn't responsible for the fall of communism derives more from any number of factors in which Reagan had no bearing whatsoever. The references provided and then unceremoniously removed without explanation explain these in more detail.
For instance, Jan Kubik's work on the emergence of civil society and Solidarity in Poland shows how important the Catholic Church and especially the election of a Polish pope, John Paul II, helped to galvanize opposition in Poland. The pope's first visit to Poland in June 1979 provided a major source of inspiration and rehearsal for the opposition and the blossoming of civil society. The fruits of that emerged in the summer of 1980, when a wave of strikes gave birth to Solidarity, the independent trade union that played a major role in undermining Communist authority in Poland, and also in fostering opposition in other parts of Eastern Europe. You'll note that John Paul II became pope in 1978 and Solidarity emerged in August 1979, both of which occurred long before Reagan became president. Moreover, the work of Solidarity had little support from the United States, or from outside of Poland in general. Much of the limited American support lent to Solidarity (and I place emphasis on the idea that it was limited and had little bearing on Solidarity) actually came from the AFL-CIO, which provided some funding and supplies (things like printing presses). Even though Solidarity was forced underground when Poland came under martial law in December 1981, it continued to exist and function as an illegal organization, and civil society continued to develop beyond it. The reemergence of Solidarity in early 1989 came not as the product of external factors, but rather from a recurrence of the persistent economic problems that dogged the Communist regime throughout its existence. The regime reached out to Solidarity. To the extent that pressures from without even played a role, these would've been marginal, and would have emanated mainly from the Kremlin. But, in truth, even that was negligible, since Moscow did little more than to tell the Polish regime that it was on its own.

Similarly, works by Timothy Garton Ash, Gale Stokes and Vladimir Tismaneanu point to the systemic weaknesses of communism within Poland. Some of the important factors they cite are economic weaknesses and a growing crisis of legitimacy that prevented Communist regimes from persisting in hardline methods of repression. At the same time, these factors also led to the genesis of opposition movements within Eastern Europe (groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the Prayers for Peace in East Germany).

The United States and Ronald Reagan don't receive credit in these explanations not due to pervasive "liberal bias," but rather because these factors that are seen as more important (and I should add as someone who has read widely in the scholarship, these are the most commonly cited explanations for the collapse of communism) and the role of the United States or of Ronald Reagan could only have been peripheral at best. It was limited largely to symbolic acts (such as Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall), but even these symbolic acts were directed more at the West and American constituents than at the people living in Communist countries.

I believe this very point was made in one of the edits that an administrator purged.

To give primary credit to Ronald Reagan or the United States for the end of the Cold War would to engage in staggering ignorance of the domestic and systemic factors that undermined Communist regimes, and to marginalize unfairly the many ordinary people and dissidents in Eastern Europe who helped to bring down communism from within. In addition, Reagan in particular deserves little credit for these developments because he was relatively late to the scene. The systemic factors, and in many cases the opposition movements as well, long predated Reagan's presidency, which had little bearing on them.

Now, call me biased, but I think that offers a very well-developed and -substantiated account of other explanations for the end of communism. Nothing in that strikes me as excessively "liberal." Indeed, the only "liberal" thing about it is that it doesn't engage in the same sort of pooh-poohing of Reagan that blindly credits him without offering substantiation.

If someone cares to offer more substantive reasons (citing references for this explanation would be a welcome change) for why Reagan deserves credit, then this entry and discussion can go somewhere.

But simply asserting that Reagan ended communism because you said so, then placing the onus on critics of this position to refute it using evidence, and then suppressing evidence that contradicts the ''a priori'' thesis/assertion: this doesn't exactly give Conservapedia's entry the ring of truth, or much in the way of credibility for that matter.

It would seem, based on the actions taken with respect to edits on this entry, that Conservapedia's "educational" mission would be more accurately described as disseminating conservative propaganda rather than presenting facts and seeking "truth."

You may castigate me for propagating a "liberal" viewpoint, but my true "bias" is that I like some sort of substantiation for sweeping generalizations and disputed claims. I merely attempted to present the alternate explanations that are mostly widely accepted among experts and scholars. You can criticize those groups for "liberal bias," but as I've made clear, there's nothing inherently liberal in these approaches. Moreover, a better response would be to offer your own facts and sources to support your claims, rather than engaging in knee-jerk censorship of someone who deigns to cite references and offer substantiation.

And your request for a signature is laughable. It has echoes of "Big Brother," and given the fascistic censorship witnessed in this article, I'd rather not risk being unceremoniously blocked for not blindly toeing the party line. The truth may not be determined democratically, but the authoritarian methods on display in Conservapedia have proven no more reliable.

-- "Karol Wojtyla"
::: None of us are perfect, probably all of us have overlooked signing our edits or our discussion at some time or another. But it is common procedure and helpful in discussion. Even months later, it is helpful in reading through a discussion to see who is making what points in what sequence. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I made the edits turning "most" into "some" and "other". The reason being is that it is more accurate to say that than to claim "most historians". There is plenty of literature that supports the claim that Reagan's willingness to meet the Soviets expansion-by-proxy and military buildup forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could ill-afford, and that this helped to break an already-faltering Soviet economy. There is also plenty of personal commentary from citizens of the former Soviet client-states who say that Reagan's opposition to the Communists gave them hope.

Your entry wasn't expunged; your points are still there. Personally, I think they '''are''' valid ones and that you simply overstated the level of agreement amongst historians.

I hope this helps you to understand why I made what I considered to be minor edits. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed, although I'd still like to see some references for the literature that credits Reagan's policies. But I would add that there's substantial agreement, at least among historians who study the Eastern bloc, on the question of whether Reagan's role was that important. Reagan appears very little in that literature, so I'm wondering where the sources/references are that give him so much credit. After all, the Second Commandment says sources must always be credited and cited. We can continue to debate those sources on the discussion page, but I think the bigger point is that there's no widely accepted monocausal explanation for the end of communism, so it would be more appropriate to provide sources for the different theses, and to also expound on those interpretations. In other words, rather than simply saying "Reagan ended the Cold War," someone needs to elaborate on the reasoning behind that. Otherwise, it violates the Sixth Commandment (don't give personal opinions in entries).

:I agree with your central contention - there is no monocausal explanation for the fall of Communism. There were several separate forces that converged to break a flawed system. In fairness, though, I think that if you re-read this article you'll see it is more even-handed than you give it credit for. Most every single acclamation given to Reagan is qualified. And, as I pointed out before, your alternate sources were not deleted.

:I would go so far as to say that, for a Conservative site, it is close to the most balanced article on the site. Perhaps you would like to write an article on the Fall of Communism that explores the other causes? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

My apologies to Dave3172. I wasn't accusing you of censorship. Rather, it was an earlier iteration of this page [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=22986]], which user Aschlafly rolled back wholesale. In that iteration, there were several references to texts supporting some of the alternative explanations for the fall of communism. While Dave3172 is right to note that the fall of communism would warrant an entry unto itself, what seemed more inappropriate was Aschlafly's decision to expunge many book citations (the earlier version was even more substantiated than the current version), with his stated reason:

"But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does."

User Aschlafly refuses to accept that, contrary to his personal opinion, the question of Reagan's credit for the end of communism is, in fact, unresolved. As other users have also tried to indicate, there are a wealth of alternative explanations that don't lend support to the "credit Reagan" thesis. And, at least in scholarly circles, it could be argued that there is substantial agreement that Reagan was not the primary or even a significant factor.

What I think is lacking for this entry, and would be worthy of inclusion on a separate entry for the fall of communism as well, would be some substantiation for the argument that Reagan deserves credit. As the article currently stands, and at least in the various iterations I've seen previously, it hasn't provided any support for this argument, aside from the anecdotal evidence of Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall, the importance of which, I might add, seemed more to bolster Reagan's standing as a Cold Warrior and anticommunist in the West, rather than to make any significant impact on developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain (a point I recall seeing in an earlier, since censored version of this entry).

I'm not the one to provide such documentation. Frankly, in my studies of this question (and it was a subfield for one of my M.A. exams, so I've read in the scholarly literature quite extensively) I'm yet to encounter anyone who has presented a very extensive or, in my opinion, compelling argument for crediting Reagan. I am generally familiar with some of the reasons conservatives have given in support of the "credit Reagan" thesis, which user Dave3172 recounted above. But I have not encountered and cannot think offhand of what sorts of books, articles and other sources might lay out this argument at greater length. I would strongly encourage someone -- anyone -- to present those reasons more lucidly. As a teacher, I want to present my students with as many different interpretations as possible, and with the reasoning behind such arguments, so I can teach them to evaluate claims and sources more effectively. It would only be appropriate to include such material in Conservapedia, and I would think that especially on Conservapedia there would be contributors better able to provide that dimension of the debate.

As it stands, I do agree with user Dave3172 that the Reagan entry is rather even-handed and balanced. And in general I think the two of us are on the same page in terms of what we'd like to see.

But as a matter of course, I think it's always better to have too many references rather than too few. This is especially true for encyclopedias. In my mind, an encyclopedia should serve as a quick reference for basic facts, but also as a mere starting point for finding more extensive treatments of various issues and questions. Even if an editor happens to doubt the credibility of a source, it's better to allow users to know what sources are being used and to enable users to access those sources and make assessments of their credibility for themselves. If only more people learned those skills and the ability to read critically, and with a healthy skepticism, my job as an educator would be infinitely easier.

The real source of my aggravation lies in user Aschlafly's cavalier attitude toward sources and evidence that don't support his personal opinions. And while such attitudes are bound to be endemic on any wiki (whether Wikipedia or Conservapedia), which was part of the stated reason for the launch of Conservapedia, I find it troubling that Aschlafly of all users, as a founder or administrator of Conservapedia (if I understand correctly) is engaging in precisely the same behaviors that Conservapedia's founders deemed so troubling and problematic in Wikipedia. It just strikes me as highly hypocritical for user Aschlafly to be just as guilty of censoring viewpoints with which he disagrees.

-- "KW"

== Evidence that Reagan helped to end the Cold War. ==

I assume this stuff is copyrighted, so I'll just give names and page numbers. These aren't historians, mind you - they're witnesses to history.

Margaret Thatcher on Reagan's impact with ending the Cold War "Statecraft" p. 10-11.
Also included in this passage is testimony from the last Soviet Foreign Minister Alexandr Bessemertnykh.

A quote from Lech Walesa, leader of Solidiarity on the back of Peter Schweinzer's book, "Reagan's War."

I can provide more evidence, if necessary.

By the way, when the Soviet Union imposed martial law on Poland because of Solidarity, Reagan did take crucial action, and the results can not be underestimated. He revoked Poland's most favored nation trading status, which meant Polish goods faced a high tariffs on exports to the US. Most importantly, he banned the sale of oil and gas technologies to the USSR. Both of these actions put tremendous pressure on the Soviets to settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans.

You got that last part absolutely wrong. The Soviet government didn't impose martial law on Poland. The Polish regime of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared it because the alternative was to watch its own collapse and allow Poland to descend into complete chaos. The Soviets were not a factor -- repeat: not a factor -- in the end to the Solidarity crisis. In fact, we now know based on documents in archives in Warsaw and Moscow that have become available since the fall of communism that the Kremlin was prepared to allow Poland to "go its own way" in 1981. This was not Moscow's preference, for obvious reasons, but after Soviet leaders assessed the likely outcome of a crackdown (a la Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979), they ruled out the military option. Some of the reasoning behind this was that Soviet leaders feared the repercussions of intervention, which they surmised would have brought an end to detente. However, equally important was their conviction that the Poles would fight back, and that the Polish Army could not be trusted to remain loyal to the Communist regime in the event of a Soviet invasion. The decision to crack down on Solidarity was left entirely to the Polish leadership. (For more elaboration on this, see Vojtech Mastny's article "The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980-1981 and the End of the Cold War," and Matthew Ouimet's "The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy.")

The irony, of course, was that the West widely believed (rather erroneously, as we now know) that Moscow had been calling the shots in Poland. So, despite the fact that it hadn't ordered the crackdown and resigned itself to the possibility of a non-Communist Poland, the Kremlin still faced the loss of benefits that had come with detente.

I'm also perplexed by your claim that the end of the legal Solidarity movement (and it's much more accurately characterized as an independent trade union and opposition movement than a strike, since hundreds of strikes occurred in this period in Poland) saw the Soviets "settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans." Martial law was about the last thing the Reagan White House would've wanted. Or perhaps the next-to-last thing, since only a direct Soviet invasion of Poland could have been worse from an American standpoint.

However, even if you point to the end of detente and the economic hardships this brought to the Soviet Union as a major causal factor in the fall of communism, it's still debatable how much credit Reagan deserves for that. Many of the moves in that direction, such as the end of American food relief to the Soviet Union, had been initiated by Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and prior to Reagan's presidency. Under Reagan those policies may have been pursued to an even greater degree, though it is likely that, had he won a second term in office, Carter would have followed much the same course (especially if you recall that his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a Pole). Much of the basis for crediting Reagan with the collapse of communism seems to dwell on his outspoken opposition to communism, and to having been in the right place at the right time. Given the array of systemic weaknesses, the developing opposition movements and the long-brewing crises that culminated in East-Central Europe in 1989, and in the Soviet Union over the following two years, it is highly probable that communism would have collapsed roughly when it did regardless of who lived in the White House in the 1980s.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing the verbatim quote from Walesa. A professor said that Walesa gave a talk in Seattle some years ago where one of the audience members asked him if he thought Reagan or Gorbachev deserved the most credit for the collapse of communism. Walesa replied, "No, it was the Holy Father!" by which he meant Pope John Paul II (since Catholics refer to the pontiff as the Holy Father). So from the perspective on someone who obviously "witnessed" (and also shaped) history, you can see what people on the ground thought.

-- "KW"

==McCarthy reference==
Reagan tesitified in 1947 before the HUAC -- even before the Hiss & White episodes; McCarthy didn't produce his list til 1950, and was a Senate Committee. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Flipping through some of the history pages, I see that PraiseTheLard mentioned Reagan's role as head of SAG in blacklisting supposed Hollywood Communists. However, I notice that this was repeatedly removed by other editors.

My question: why? This really happened, and I don't think the facts are in dispute. Thus, shouldn't it be included in an entry on Reagan, especially as it was one of the more notable (or notorious, depending on one's perspective) things he did in the years before he became governor*, and it can be seen as a stepping stone to politics, as well as an early sign of his zealotry as a Cold Warrior.

* Unless, of course, you consider the classic Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) to meet these criteria. But it's already in the entry under miscellanea.

:Why? Yes, Reagan did testify in 1947 regarding subversive communist influence in SAG; Joe McCarthy started his investigations in 1950 of government employees and contractors doing business with government. Now, unlike Wikipedia, we can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, for several months I was in dispute resolution over things like people who died in 1948, 2 years before McCarthy, who nevertheless were victims of McCarthyism. Or all the atomic physicists who ended up on the Hollywood Blacklist. Or McCarthy, who never served in the House, sat on the House Un-America Activities Committee. Now these are quite simply facts any child has access to, nonetheless, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to allow some of this information into the sum total of human knowledge. So unless you can somehow prove that 1947 = 1950, Ronald Reagan in no way shape or form can be said to have any conection with "McCarthyism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

* If you read my comment on the removal more carefully, you'd notice that I never mentioned McCarthy or McCarthyism (I had nothing to do with the edits that included and removed that information, which is why I was questioning the actions of those involved). What I was trying to call attention to (and clearly failed to do so) was why information on Reagan's anticommunist activities, such as his role in blacklisting people in Hollywood for alleged Communist sympathies, was removed. What I suggested ought to have happened was that the incorrect information linking Reagan to McCarthyism could have been removed, but the other information outlining his anticommunist activities in conjunction with SAG and the Hollywood Blacklist should have been retained. Something about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- "KW"

:KW, Thanks for the clarification. There is much confusion regarding the so-called Hollywood blacklist. What you find is (A) deliberate efforts to cite HUAC as the source of the blacklist (B) deliberate efforts and distortions to cite McCarthy as serving on HUAC at the time.

:The simple fact of the matter is (A) the "blacklisted" actors and writers were blacklisted by the MPAA (the same group that issues movie ratings and the Oscars); (B) the US government '''did not''' blacklist the Hollywood actors; (C) McCarthy's Committee, which had nothing to do with the blacklist in the first place, would not possess legal authority to investigate anyway. McCarthy's Committee only had legal jurisdiction to investigate the US Government or government contractors.

:Now, it is argued that some Hollywood films had business relationships with the US Government in the making of films in WWII. Yes, this is true. To that extent, if there were a pretext to investigate Hollywood studios, screenwriters, and actors who were acting as government contractors, why ''didn't'' McCarthy investigate them.

:Needless to say, unravelling the a half century of deliberate distortions and deceptions is messy indeed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:''P.S. Reagans credentials as an anti-Communist aren't really something we need to speculate about; attempts to "link" Reagan to some of the unpleasant aspects of "McCarthyism" is something we need to be concerned about.''

*'''Something our younger members might want to keep in mind, it is totally ''revisionist thinking'' to view the House Un-American Activities Committee, its investigations and Congressman McCarthy as evil. I think the genocide of the Soviet Communist Party, and its leaders are very well documented. So are the hundreds of spies sent to the U.S. It is a proven fact that many true-believers, as opposed to those who were easily mislead or naive, did actively get jobs in the film industry. What you know today as "transparency" didn't exist in the 50's and 60's. Nuclear bombs were new to us, the leader of the Soviet Union announced on TV that they would "bury" us. These are things you need to take into consideration when examining the period.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 19:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Can we limit the speculation and the removal of facts/sources to include unsubstantiated opinion? ==

Someone earlier today inserted a line at the end of the survey of various interpretations of the end of communism to the effect of "Nevertheless, Reagan was the personal driving force behind the fall of communism." Given the multitude of other interpretations presented in this article and elsewhere on the talk page, it seemed inappropriate to add that line as a way of denying the existence of controversy in this debate and asserting a personal opinion as manifest fact. As it stands, and as I reverted it, the article never claimed that any single interpretation was "right." Instead, the main idea (and what I would hope would be more important for an encyclopedia) is that the issue is not clear cut, and to present the basic contours of the debate.

Similarly, I noticed that a user changed the section on the presidential legacy regarding SDI/Star Wars, removing the information about how the principle of atmospheric-based missile defense (the foundation of SDI) has never been tested successfully. Moreover, the same user changed the line that said (and I paraphrase from memory), "Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking." In its place, the new line (again, I paraphrase) said simply that "SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage against the Soviet Union." Any notion that the existence of leverage is disputed was summarily excised.

While I understand that many (most?) of the users of Conservapedia likely believe Reagan to have been the driving force behind the end of the Cold War, and to have though that SDI brought the Soviet Union to its knees and spurred the collapse of communism, I underline that these are only individual opinions. They may be based on certain sources, but they remain interpretations and not cut-and-dry facts. At the very least, there should be documentation and evidence to support these sorts of assertions. But I also think that, given the level of contention over these questions in academic and political debates, a better approach for Conservapedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is to present the controversy and the various sides, rather than unilaterally presenting one perspective as absolute fact.

It's my understanding that this was a major motivation for creating Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, to include viewpoints that were being summarily removed on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting alternative viewpoints, but I think what's essential to give Conservapedia any broad credibility is to not provide '''only''' the viewpoints lacking on Wikipedia, but to present all the viewpoints. If you only want to present certain viewpoints, well, it is called Conservapedia, but you should probably stop claiming to be encyclopedic in nature.

'''**Reagan, while President of SAG, opposed Communist infilteration of the guilds in Hollywood, however he was also instrumental in fighting for actors who were painted by McCarthy's broad brush, and got their names removed. He did just that in helping a young actress, Nancy Davis, who he eventually married.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good observations. With reference to,
::''"Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking."''
:the subtle thing said here is trying to separate "conservatives" from "most analysts", i.e. moderate or manistream. Facts are so-called "conservative analysts" are very mainstream given the subject under discussion. The so-called "moderate analysts", or others this referes to, are journalists and opinion makers, not defense policy analysts. This sort of subtlety needs to be watched for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: But I think you're falsely interpreting a statement that says "many conservatives" to exclude conservatives from or the "mainstream." Perhaps the issue was in the paraphrase I believe the exact language said something to the effect of "many political scientists and historians," or "scholars," or something a bit more specific. But when I said "analysts," I meant this merely as a shorthand for a variety of groups, which included many relevant scholars, and did not mean it in the narrow sense of defense policy analysts. I certainly don't think defense analysts had a monopoly on wisdom or insight regarding Soviet policymaking. We know from documents and materials available after the fact that as much as analysts and observers got right, they also got many things wrong. And this assessment applies equally to academics, scholars, journalists, politicians and opinion makers as it does to defense experts, policy analysts, etc. Likewise, I meant policymaking in a broad sense for the Soviet case, having in mind domestic political and economic policies as much as military and foreign policies. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In fact, here is the verbatim passage: "While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the Soviet Union, most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount."

:: I think you'll agree that the language here is much less problematic. And while there are undoubtedly Reagan supporters in the ranks of political scientists and historians, I think it's accurate to suggest that more of them aren't Reagan supporters than are.

::Anyway, my apologies for having been lazy and not citing the exact passage earlier, which I think was a source of much confusion. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''most political scientists and historians note that...."
:::How about, ''many [or some] political scientists and historians are of the opinion that ...'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am somewhat skeptical of citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction, when quoting Soviet citizens, who were or are a part of that government, being as their vested interest is in denigrating any accomplishments by Reagan. Likewise the part about military service, which I removed, was completely inaccurate, in that it failed to mention that he did indeed enlist, was an officer, and contributed to the raising of millions of 1940's Dollars on behalf of the war effort. Likewise his fighting of the black lists, which his own future wife, Nancy Davis was put on. Cannot the Sysops here block this highly inaccurate and troubling information being listed? It troubles me users cannot contact anyone about this, in a easily identified manner. Someone put up these web pages, it belongs to someone. Someone is ultimately responsible, no? If not, perhaps I need to refer all this BS to the likes of Ed Meese or Mike Deever, for rebuttal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan actually served ''two'' non-contiguous active military stints, if I recall. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Reagan entered military service in 1942 and served for three years in the U.S. Army, for which he made training films, and he was discharged with the rank of captain. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 10:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Reagan states in his 1965 autobiography [http://www.biblio.com/books/28287897.html] he served in the Cavalry, confirmed here [http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25513&page=51 Ronald Reagan, Cavalry Lt/USAAF Capt, FMPU; personnel officer 9th AF]; Peggy Noonan likeqwise cites it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me what was "inaccurate" or "troubling" in saying that Reagan, as head of SAG, was involved in naming members of the film industry on the Hollywood Blacklist? He was involved. He answered questions in HUAC hearings and kept the FBI informed about "disloyal" members of his union. These are facts.[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html] I can't assess the veracity of the statement that Reagan also tried to shield actors victimized by McCarthy, which would certainly make Reagan's a complex and difficult-to-read character.

But the main points to make are 1) nothing in the statement that Reagan played at least a contributing role (by testifying before HUAC, informing the FBI, etc.) in the Hollywood Blacklist is factually inaccurate; 2) if Reagan ''did'' try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis, then it needs to be cited (see the Conservapedia commandment if you're unclear on the reason why); 3) whatever role Reagan may have played in vindicating those unjustly accused by McCarthy, it still doesn't make it any less true to note that earlier he played a part in the anticommunist persecution of individuals who wound up blacklisted in Hollywood.

Also, I find it maddeningly ignorant and offensive to make such a blanket statement as to claim broad skepticism regarding the ability of "citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction," whether quoting Soviet citizens, or in any other context. First, I don't know why the whole "immediately distrust foreigners" is even relevant to this discussion, or to the edits on the Reagan article. Second, ignorance, like wisdom, knows no national boundaries. Americans hold a monopoly on neither. You can love this country and think it's the greatest in the world, but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing the intelligence of non-Americans, or the ignorance of many Americans. Rather than making such a blanket condemnation, try to point to specific examples of bias, ignorance or what have you, instead of speaking in such vague generalizations. -- "KW"

::Ok, so by Reagan giving testimony to HUAC, then a separate non-governmental entity, the Motion Picture Association of America blacklists actors, that makes Reagan "involved". Whereas in fact, the actual involvement of the MPAA is suspect, because it appears to be coincidental that the members of MPAA are the ones who refused to extend contracts, not the MPAA itself.
:::''Reagan did try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis...''
::I beleive you may be misusing the term "McCarthyism here; and can you provide a cite for the specific reference. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

*By the way, HUAC stands for "House Un-American Activities Committee" '''which was an official body of the United States Congress'''. It was Chaired by Congressman Joesph McCarthy, of Wisconson. As for extending contracts, the motion picture studios are the true villians here, in caving into pressure from the Congress. Not excusing Congress's actions but it wasn't the Government refusing the contracts.--[[User:TK|TK]] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You make my point for me. It is ignorant, in the extreme, to give half-answers as "fact" like about Reagan's testimony before the HUAC, without explaining further, his other actions. To ignore, or leave them out is bias indeed. It proves my point, because most anyone from the Untited States, politically involved, knows the story about how Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis!! You are using clearly liberal, left of center sourcing material, and passing it off as fact, just because you provided a source. Go to moveon.org, and you can get those types of "facts". You have a very revisionist view, imo, almost of someone too young to remember, prersonally, the period. It was not considered heinous at that time, to oppose Communist infiltration of the entertainment industry, and while most people did not agree with McCarthy's tactics, they did not oppose the goal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My omission of the story about how Ronald met Nancy was based on ignorance, yes. I didn't know the story behind it, but that doesn't reflect willful or malicious neglect on my part. I couldn't tell you how any president met his wife, which is more a product of my priorities, or "bias," as you term it: I simply don't care much for personal gossip of any sort. There, you know my personal "bias" regarding the matter at hand.

::But, again, if I made an omission, then the correct move on your part is to correct it by '''adding the missing fact, not expunging other facts that don't tell the story you like.''' That's all I requested. I don't profess omniscience, and I'm certainly not an expert on the intricacies of the Reagans' courtship. But since you apparently have knowledge of that and consider it so essential to the story of his involvement with HUAC, then add that to the entry and share your particular wisdom with everyone. Balance is a good thing, and that's what I was trying to urge you to provide. Obviously I want as complete a picture as possible, but I also don't know every side of the story, and I know I don't know.

::And you're right that I don't have personal recollections of the period. However, my age or experience make my contributions no less valid. I don't discount the very real sense of fear and terror that pervaded the era. But while you might consider this a hindrance or claim this forces me into "revisionism," I can respond by saying that your personal experiences and recollections dooms you to your own "bias," in that you evidently feel like you have a stake in the matter, whereas I didn't have anything to gain or lose based on its outcome. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" or more "objective." It's just a way of noting that no one is immune from bias, and that bias takes a number of forms. This, among many other reasons, is why I place such emphasis on including as many different dimensions as possible. Clearly you have a perspective that I don't, but your perspective might cause you to focus on certain things to the exclusion of other factors that seem noteworthy to me. Why not use our different perspectives to mutual advantage? -- "KW"

:::I think you confuse this place for Wikipedia. This is the Conservative version. Therefore like values are tensed more than those which oppose, otherwise what is this place for? I also think you mistake personal things for purely historical ones. I am not making you, personally less valid, however this place is the place for debating your personal ideas, and the failure to go the extra mile and inform the people who will use this as a resource, of the whole story, not a fragment of it. You are using, in my opinion, the same tired liberal sources those of us in the States have grown to mistrust. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Evidently I confused this place for an encyclopedia interested in facts. I see you arbitrarily removed the information about how Honecker could and did ignore Gorbachev's entreaties for reform. The fact that several Soviet troops were stationed in East Berlin was quite ancillary to the issue at question, namely the status of the Berlin Wall. Were, as you (or whoever added the line about the Soviet troops) suggested, Gorbachev to have exercised military pressure on Honecker to reform, he would've ceased to be a reformer. You can't force through those sorts of liberalizing measures through violent and oppressive measures. The French Revolution attempted that, and in ended in the Reign of Terror and, later, with military rule under Napoleon. Your decision to willy-nilly ignore the realities of internal dynamics, both within the Eastern bloc and within individual countries of the bloc, makes your own ''opinion'' regarding the importance of Gorbachev (and what he potentially could have done) to the fall of the Berlin Wall exceedingly groundless and unsubstantiated. Even though the first incarnation of the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 with Soviet assistance, this was what the East German government at the time wanted as well, in order to triage the massive population loss and brain drain of East Germans who went to West Berlin and from there to the West. Those desires held true into 1989, and it was only when popular pressures began to mount within East German for opening the borders that things began to change. Moreover, the fall of the Wall itself was not the product of deliberate policy on anyone's part; on November 9, 1989, the party head in Berlin read (or perhaps misread, as scholars have debated) an announcement on television in somewhat unclear language (if you see a clip of the broadcast, you can even see him looking a bit surprised and what he thought he was reading) to the effect that the border would be opened for private trips abroad, which the East Germans watching on television interpreted to mean the complete opening of the border, prompting thousands to storm the checkpoints and begin tearing down the Wall. In the end, not Gorbachev nor Honecker nor Reagan, for that matter, played a key role in tearing down the Wall. Credit a bureaucrat's vague words and the initiative of the thousands of East Germans who made it so.

::::And I don't know why you keep making thinly veiled illusions suggesting that I'm some sort of foreigner. You keep using that canard to try to discredit me, but it only reflects poorly on you because 1) I'm an American, born and raised, and 2) your implication that anyone who bothers to learn about the other side of an issue (or in this case to pay attention to what was actually happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain rather than accepting a bunch of poorly supported opinions as the gospel truth) must not be American suggests that anyone who's American is also ignorant with respect to the rest of the world. -- "KW"
:::::KW, these are all good points you make above and well researched. However you may be argueing the substance on the page. Let's find somewhere to put all that research in. How about [[German Democratic Republic|East Germany]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Done. It's a fragmentary entry, by necessity, but at least there's the beginnings of an entry. -- "KW"

== Citations from Wikipedia.... ==

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there?

*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''

== Edits ==

I think the reorder is somewhat cumbersome, and not putting most of the information at the top, perhaps? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iran/Contra==
For this edit,
:''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."''
we need (a) a date; (b) source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
----
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted Reagan as uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair in 1988. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. Good research. Now as to specifics, your language "''depicted Reagan as uninformed''" is stated perhaps more precisely as "Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director William Casey, persuaded Reagan...".

*: '''Rob, "uninformed" in government parlance, is not what you think. It means the subordinates did not inform him. Those are raw quotes, which would need re-phrasing. I sent you an email, did you get it? There are lot of things most sane people wouldn't feel comfortable posting about themselves on public pages.''' --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Got it. Yes a private discussion can help facilitate where we wish to go with this and save time. I responded, did you get it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''No, Rob..I haven't reveived anything from you. Did you send it via email through this board? I'll email you, with my IM info.'''

:The two NSDD cited deserves treatment in context, however after Reagan's reelection (and the reestablishment of relations with Iraq) the overture to Iran to sell weapons from Israel was given more focus, as the Tower Commission Report clearly gives detail. Also, feelers were sent prior to the second term regarding contact between Teheran and the hostage takers in Lebenon.

:The language "''dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics''" referes to the use of the Iranian [[Mahatma Ghandi]] and proginator of [[Human Rights]] reforms in Iran, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], use of children to clear minefields.

:A proposal: lets complete a good review of the Iran/Contra affair here, in the Reagan artcle, which then perhaps could be spun off into its separate article with only a summary left behind. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Not from me, Rob! I put up material here, someone takes it, re-compiles it, slaps it back up as their edit, after the same thing was added by me a day or so ago! Is there some commandment about NOT communicating here? You invited participation, yet everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off, never communicating! --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make two observervations: (1) the stuff about it being outed on Nov. 3 1986 (we need to check if that is prior to election day 1986 when the Democrats regained the Senate and were in a position to hold public investigations, or after election day) is well researched, and we can put it in at the point it belongs. (2) The stuff about Iraq is going to need some clarification, because this narrative picks up "after Reagan was re-elected", i.e. after Nov. 84, and his swearing in Jan. 85; NSDD 139, 5 April 1984 is ''prior''. While all this material is extremely (a) valid and (b) relevent, we are writing an historical narrative of events, not doing a hit piece with piecemeal material out of context. So this is what I'd like to discuss, gaining some structure to events.

:::Let me add, as an after thought, all accounts I read all over the web dismiss this all as a "scandal" of a bunch of greedy arms dealers and other assorted low-lifes which either includes Reagan, or Reagan gave his assent to. That POV has been explicitely stated eleswhere. So what we are examining is the motives for Reagan's giving assent to this matter. And beginning with a conclusory premise, that (a) Reagan's just another greedy corrupt Republican (b) this is just more evidence of the currupt aims, motives, and duplicity of Republicans in power and why you can't trust them, will fail. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)==Iraq==

'''Comment on this inclusion''':''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.");''

this may warrant inclusion at some point, and it no way contradicts US policy aims as stated by Henry Kissinger upon the outbreak of the Iran-iraq War in 1981, "All we can do is hope they both loose." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Being old enough to remember this time really good but too old to remember exactly where I heard this: The CIA, in shipments of Iran's weapons, would include "faulty" munitions such as hand grenades that would explode as soon as the handle was released, killing the thrower. Not all, but like 15-20% were "defective". I'll see if I can find a source.
::''primea facia'' this may be faulty; you will recall CIA was not involved in Iran/Contra; and using Israel & private arms dealers is what the matter was all about. Please, do not come here with warrantless, unqualified speculation. Get legitimate source documents first, then bring it to our attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
----
*Reagan said, '''''"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran..."'''''
This is the same problem that confronts President Bush today, i.e. allowing Iran to gain ascendancy over the majority Shia in Iraq, and the region. I'm sorry if this conflicts with journalists and scandalmongers aims to sell newspapers to paint Reagan in bed with the fascist Ba'athists, but this is not a propaganda vehicle, and we are here to write factual biography of Mr. Reagan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly, RobS. In the secular, political world, sometimes the person you end up in bed with, well...the reason you do is just because there isn't room anywhere else, or you are simply too tired to look elsewhere. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So the point here is, the crazies in Iran gaining hegemony in the Gulf needed to be detered (then, as now); then in Reagan's second term the fear that if a militarized Iraq survived the War intact, it might turn it's attention elsewhere, like Kuwait, which it did.

:::What do we know? Journalists blew the story wide open to sell headlines, and partisan Democrats looking to make a scandal, hastened (1) the Gulf War of 1991; (2) the fact that Iran ''still'' isn't an ally, and remains hostile with nuke capabilities. And if Iran hasn't got a nuke yet, they got the money to buy brainpower or an operational bomb from cash starved North Korea.

:::All this so partisans could create a scandal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Welcome to my world. I console myself knowing that sooner or later (usually later) the public gets damned mad, and there is literally political hell to pay. I have been waiting for that now about 7 years. Look at http://newt.org for American Solutions....something is being done, and the ground work being layed. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Laramie Project

2007-03-19T07:23:08Z

Jack:

'''The Laramie Project''' is a play by Moisés Kaufman and members of the Tectonic Theater Project based on the controvesy surrounding the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming.

The play first opened at The Ricketson Theatre by the Denver Center Theatre Company in February 2000. The play was also performed in the Union Square Theater in New York City, and again in November 2002 performance in Laramie. HBO subsequently made a movie based on the play. To date, the play has been performed at several hundred High Schools across the United States helping many young people address issues of homophobia in their own communities.

Critics of both the play and movie have commented they feel The Laramie Project is a homosexual propaganda movie, particularly in light of statements made by Matthew Sheppards killers on the 20/20 News Program.

== Judy Sheppard and the Matthew Sheppard Foundation ==

Judy Sheppard founded The Matthew Sheppard Foundation shortly after her son was killed, then almost immediately began offering her services as a guest speaker on "anti-gay hate crimes" across the United States at events sponsored by the gay rights movement. Mrs. Sheppard charges between $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 per event as a "guest speaker".[citation needed] To date, she has spoken at a large number of such events perpetuating what many critics and fundamental Christian groups refer to as "The Matthew Sheppard Hate Crime Hoax".

In 2003, Judy Sheppard received salaries and bonuses of $82,485.00 from her foundation. By 2002, Judy Sheppard had amassed over $423,894.00 in assets through her foundation promoting Matthew's murder as a "homosexual hate crime". Later in 2003, her foundation reported total assets of $332,731.00.

== References ==

*[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1 20/20 News Story on Matthew Sheppard]
*[http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20051027_laramie-project-lie.pdf The Laramie Project Lie]

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-03-19T06:56:29Z

Jack: /* Eliminate this Hate */

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2007-03-18T23:26:35Z

Jack: /* Honest question from a frustrated user */

Better. Explained the iron problem and its solution. Removed all mention of Canup, as it is very confusing to refer to: "This scientist said X, which supports my position. But then they said they were wrong, their computer model was off, X is not true at all. Still, they said X, so im going to cite them as supporting my claim."

-----
Who wrote this? It has about as much scientific accuracy as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. Further, the article ''contradicts'' the same source it claims support from regarding angular momentum! --{{unsigned|Suricou}}

The history of the Moon Theories, and the reason for their rejection, has been censored from this content page. Why? We're not going to allow censorship of history here. No one disputes this history, so why are folks trying to censor it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:...wha? The source you cited explained why the current theory is generally accepted and why the previous theories are most likely wrong. The article reflects that. Please explain what is being "censored". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: What was censored is that the prevailing, accepted theories of the origin of the Moon were disproven by the lunar landings, and then scientists convened to deveop a new theory. That is historical fact. No one disputes it. Why do liberals insist on censoring it???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... there is ''one'' currently accepted theory. And that is not disproven by the lunar landing. The article mentions the three old theories that are in the source AND says what speaks against them. It's right there. In fact, the first three items of the list were left almost completely untouched.
::And what do you expect scientists to say when something speaks against their current theory? Something like "Wow, the new findings go against our theory! So we must not develop a new theory, but instead we should embrace the fact that God the Almighty did it!" maybe? So of course they developed a new theory based on new observations. Welcome to science.
::The current theory (number 4) is not disproven. The source argues in favor of it. Trying to cite it to "prove" or even "suggest" that it's wrong would be extremely deceiving. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Honest question from a frustrated user ==

Aschlafly, are you going to ban me if I rephrase/expand the current "article" and take some of your anti-scientific spin and quote-mining out it to make it a bit more neutral and balanced? This would normally be a no-brainer, but the article and site history (especially the reverts) show that this is not a trivial question, so I'd rather have permission before I get infinitely banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Everything in the content page is factual and thoroughly supported. Be specific about what you think is wrong. Obviously this challenges your personal opinions but the point here is to set forth the scientific and historical facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't think you should let him change a thing. It is a really, really good article as is everything you contribute to this site. Your students are very lucky to have you. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-03-18T23:21:27Z

Jack: /* Note on item 5. of the list on bias */

I will do that sir

Aight dawg, my bizzad.

Nice revision to the Eisenhower entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)

We don't have a "U.S. President" entry yet. Please create one! (You can do that by entering the term in the "Find" box and, when it is not found, click the link to create one.) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

You just made a good, subtle edit with respect to "Al Qaeda" and the 9/11 attacks. Well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Good move of Bill Clinton to his real name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, Mr. Schlafly, I think the move was done by Dpbsmith. But, Geo, your edits and template-making-skills have been more than helpful. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:I am pretty sure I moved it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Tremendous edits! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Welcome to the SYSOP group! Please help block vandals when we reopen registration.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you. Will I go to hell for braking them? [[User:Sane|Sane]]

== Einstein and rollback ==

A word- on most Wikiprojects the use of the admin roll back toll can be considered rude when not dealing directly with vandalism or disruption. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Okay. [[User:Sane|Sane]]

== Mexico ==

Try clicking on the link you gave me, it redirects to a page called "404.shtml". --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Geo ==

I see that you mentioned you were going to unblock Oedipus Rex. I don't know what he posted but certainly his user id. is suspect, and the person who blocked rarely blocks anyone. Are you sure you were able to review deleted pages that might not show up any longer on "Revised Changes"? I'd recommend being cautious about unblocking someone blocked for obscenity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking ==

Click on the page where you would normally block the user, there should be a link there to an "unblock" form. Click on that and fill it out. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Is your unblocking of Koronus temporary or permanent? He vandalized many pages a week ago, including the placement of an obscene image on my User Page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Never mind, I see what you've done. Cool. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Block times ==

If an editor's behavior is so bad that you don't want them to edit ever again, there's no need to do something like a year block, just do an indefinite block. Meanwhile, on most Wikis I'm a member of, deliberately temporary blocks for first offenders are generally much shorter, ranging from about 8 hours to 1 week depending on the project and severity of the offense. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I'd say an infinite ban after parole is broken. I'm for being lenient and giving second chances, but we'll need to have a lot of people watching for vandals. My hope is that most people will just forget if they aren't serious about helping.
I think if we do institute a parole policy there should be some way to mark people on parole so that if they commit a violation (say, something they write needs rollback) the sysop doing this can see and ban them. --[[User:John|John]] 23:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Sorry ==
One of my students misused the account. It won't happen again. Please see my discussion page. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:06, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Template for AFD==

Do we have a template to stick on top of articles that are under AFD? Thanks. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:The article is [[Quote mining]] see my AFD [[AFD Quote mining]]. Good luck with this project, enjoyed working with most of you. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Change to ACLU ==

Hey Geo,
A while ago you suggested that I write to you with my proposed addition to the ACLU article, about what good the ACLU has done. Sorry it's taken so long, but it's included below

----

The ACLU & the Fight Against Racism (make this a section heading, please?)

Along with the [[NAACP]], led at the time by [[Thursgood Marshall]], the ACLU briefed and argued many influential Supreme Court opinions that led to the eradication of legal segregation.<ref>Examples: [[Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483]]</ref> They have continued to defend racial equality since.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice</ref> Even recently, the ACLU fought to overturn prohibitions against renting buildings to immigrants<ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/ss/news082206_3.htm</ref>

----

Additionally, you really need to edit out the language indicating that the author of the Dover case, Judge Jones, relied on a court opinion that was reversed (the ''Cobb'' case). First, I'm a Georgian so I know firsthand about the case. The appeal was actually dropped, leaving the pro-evolution lower court holding intact.[http://www.nebscience.org/cobb.html]

Second, I'm a law student, so I know that "vacated and remanded" means "come back with more info, we can't decide this," while "reversed" means "Lower Court, you were wrong." Equating the two sends the message that the higher court indicated that the lower court's pro-evolution Cobb opinion was wrongly decided; despite your personal feelings, no high court has said so, and the case was dropped.

--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for adding the Racism section!!

: On the "vacate" thing, two points.

: First of all, note that the appeal was dropped, discontinuing appellate review. I cited to it above, you can see the website for yourself. So that renders moot the distinction between "reverse" and "vacate."

: Second, the difference between is plain from any Black's Law Dictionary. Vacate & Remand means to nullify the judgment pending renewed appellate review, and this action, importantly, '''passes no judgment "on the merits" of the lower court's opinion.''' Reversal explicitly passes judgment on the merits. The line in the ACLU article as it stands suggests that the higher court reviewed the lower court's opinion "on the merits" and disagreed, which it did not. It simply barred enforcement of the judgment until the appeal was completed, based on an incomplete list of trial docs.

: The "on the merits" distinction is critical. While you can no longer enforce a judgment that's been vacated, that does not necessarily imply that the lower court opinion is no longer ''good law.'' Depending on the procedural posture, it may still be good law. Check the case, and you'll see that the higher court intended it to still be good law.

: Oh, and aside from that, I think the unbiased nature of the article remains highly in doubt. First off, there is no "gay agenda" anymore than there is a "black agenda" or a "female agenda" - none of those groups are unified political entities, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. I think "agenda" should be stricken from the topic heading, to avoid sounding too pejorative.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
(I'm adding this here as it was mentioned I should over in the ACLU/talk page.) The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 08:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Adding a link to the opinion, which '''does''' disprove the part of the ACLU article that I've consistently told you is wrong, does not excuse the continued presence of false and misleading statements in the body of the article. I still recommend you strike the statements, or modify them. I'll help you draft them if you want.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mainpage, "Articles to be improved" ==

Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement|Articles to be improved]]? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked ==

A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html</ref> , also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref>

In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] noted the case ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact." Jones came to this same conclusion himself, relying on the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and applying the [[reasonable student standard]] that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case itself.<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The Judge uses this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites ''Selman'' and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the ''Selman'' holding.<ref>''See Kitzmiller'', 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.</ref>

[[Judge John E. Jones]] has been accused of copying heavily from the ALCU's briefs by the [[Discovery Institute]], an institution that filed ''amicus curiae'' briefs in the case.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News</ref> The allegation is a partial truth.<ref>This is true with regards to Judge Jones' statements in the early parts of the opinion manifesting his agreement with the ACLU's briefs, but the legal reasoning of the case - constituting the bulk of the opinion - is all original. ''See generally Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 707.</ref>The judge also ordered costs for the plaintiff, in accord with [[civil procedure]] protocol, totalling over $2 million.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

----

I've come to these conclusions based on close reading of the case. I deleted the line about preventing appeal - it's not in the opinion - and I removed the line about ''Selman'' being vacated, since it seems to me unnecessary since it's only one of a few cites. Note that none of this is opinion. It's all fact. For example, if you doubt my change to the wording of the Discovery Institute's "90% plagiarized" comment, I suggest you read the whole opinion.

If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to discuss it with me over e-mail (ames@nyu.edu) or on this page, or on my page. I'd rather you edit this as you see fit than toss it all out :-) !--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: So...?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm having image upload troubles; If it's not a hassle, could you please upload the image [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg here] and let me know where you put it? I want to use it in the welcome template. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fire in the Reichstag ==
This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But as the statement as it is now is simplistic can can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

== Enjoy ==
Enjoy yourself here since everybody on Wikipedia knows you are a vain useless non contributor. [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 01:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hows teh arb cabal? [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Conservapedia ==
Here's a non-obscene version, I hope it meets your standards and is not censored like most non-Conservative content. *edit: ugh, formatting problems, sorry*

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on [[Conservapedia]]. Please add to this.

1. Conservapedia condemns the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. despite B.C.E. and C.E. being the recognized standard world-wide. The change was made to not alienate other cultures around the world, since using B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) is supposed to be an international standard, not an American standard only.

2. Conservapedia gives credit to America, Christianity (sometimes radical Christianity and Creationism), and Conservative views, many times forgetting other factors involved, other countries, other religions, and other points of view. On the main page, Conservapedia even says that "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America". However, often full credit is not due to either Christianity or America, the world does not revolve around Christian Americans.

3. Conservapedia claims it is correcting the Liberal bias found in Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia shows both sides of possible debates in the majority of their articles. Conservapedia on the other hand only includes the arguments for the conservative view, and Christian view. Conservapedia, while claiming to be less biased, includes an article called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which slanders Wikipedia in many ways, often giving incorrect information and irrelevant arguments against its articles.

4. Conservapedia lets anyone with a Conservative, Christian point of view to edit their pages, but any edits done from another point of view are removed, while Wikipedia lets anyone from any point of view edit their pages, and payed experts and scientists edit and make changes to keep the information extremely accurate.

5. Conservapedia claims that twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative compared to Liveral, while three times as many editors identify themselves as Liveral as compared to Conservative on Wikipedia. However, the fact that 2/3 of Americans are Conservative does not mean that all information should be adjusted to have an approximate 2/3 bias towards Conservatives, facts are facts. Also, the fact that 3/4 editors on Wikipedia are Liberal means nothing since they are professionals, and are payed to remain unbiased while they make changes with legitimate sources. There is no logic, truth, or relevance in saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than the American public, and we also must remember than Wikipedia is meant for the entire world, not just Americans.

6. Conservapedia also condemns Wikipedia for claiming 1.5 million articles, but not all of them being useful. However, Wikipedia never claimed that their articles were educational. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which contains information about anything and everything.

7. Conservapedia restricts editing of many pages that are considered to be controversial, but some of these pages are purely restricted because visitors with non-conservative, non-christian, or non-american views correct the biased material.

8. The majority of articles about animals include an amazingly short stub of relevant information (generally the animal's description), while the last 80% of the article or so is all about the creation of said animal. In most cases, the creation section of these articles only includes the views of Creationists, and there is little to no mention of Evolution, despite the evidence supporting it.

9. In more than one case, Evolution is also thrown aside and discarded with completely false information about the dating of fossils being incorrect, despite the method of dating fossils (carbon dating) being incredibly accurate. Evolution is generally thrown aside because the fossil evidence proving the Earth's age is at least several million years old (if not several billion), conflicts with the views of Young Earth Creationists. Evolution is also discarded because of the apparent lack of mid-evolution evidence, despite there being many examples of such.

10. References are seldomly cited, even on the most popular of pages, and when they are cited, they often include very little literature and many websites which are statistically much less accurate. The majority of the time, if there are sources, most if not all of the sources will be relating only to the Christian/Creationist, Conservative, American point of view, therefore anything written about the other side of any possible debates are being written with no sources, and the sources used for the Conservative side of the debate are almost always extremely biased.

11. On the main page, the Conservapedia claims that it includes 4,700 educational articles that are student-friendly. However, the majority of the articles are extremely short stubs with few to no references that show only a single point of view. Also, the majority of the articles are written with poor grammar and a low grade reading level, which is hardly appropriate for student use.

12. Conservapedia has since edited the following statement which was included on the main page: "Conservapedia has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists." However, to claim that Conservapedia is scientific when it often states that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect solely because "there is no evidence" or that it's "just a theory" despite fossil evidence and many animals, including humans backing up this theory, is very unscientific.

13. Conservapedia also displays is bias through the use of American spelling of words only, and in fact points out that Wikipedia uses the "foreign" spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. This is true, however the English language was derived in England - where the spelling of words most certainly is correct if they invented the language. The so called "foreign" spelling of English words on Wikipedia is in fact correct for the rest of the world, and it should not have to cater to any country which uses different spelling which is in fact an altered version of the original, correct, English language. The fact that Wikipedia redirects to the original English spelling of American words shows that they are serving the entire world, and it is in fact conveniant for everyone in this case.

14. Articles such as the one on Kangaroos, and the one on Dinosaurs have ridiculous claims which are used solely to support the Young Earth Creationist view. For example, the article states that from the Origins Theory Model that Kangaroos originated in the Middle East. However, Kangaroos would have had absolutely no way of travelling as far as they would need to during Pangea to end up in Australia, and even moreso after Pangea. Kangaroos can only live in a certain climate, and it is physically impossible for them to have originated in the Middle East. The only references are to Christian and Creationist websites, which are extremely biased and try as hard as they can to prove that their ideas are the one and only correct ones. The article on dinosaurs is similar, and has very little about dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Instead, the article focuses on how creationists believe that fossil evidence is incorrect because of dating methods (even though this is physically impossible to be incorrect, since carbon dating is extremely precise). There are no references citing where these fossil records could possibly be proven wrong in any way, and even mentions that the Young Earth Creationists believe this primarily because of biblical sources, which can hardly be used as a reference. Once again the only other references cite Creationist and Christian websites only. There is absolutely no mention of even the possibility of an ice age, a meteor, or anything else relevant, it is purely talk about Creationism, and to try and support its claims it says there is even a possibility that these dinosaurs still live on Earth without us seeing them (even with satellite technology somehow).

15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".

== Note on item 5. of the list on bias ==
Conservapedia observed correctly there are about twice as many conservatives than liberals in the American population. If you would have followed the link to the poll, you would have found that Conservapedia, or Aschlafly, forgot to mention the moderates. 2/5 th of all Americans are moderate, 1/3 conservative, and 1/5th liberals (and the remaining 1/15th have no opinion, apparently). So a ratio of 2:1 conservatices vs liberals, does not mean that 2/3rd are conservative. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007 20:45 (AEST)
::The ratio is completely irrelevant. The point is, facts are facts, and Wikipedia and Conservapedia should not be attempting to cater to a particular preference of the majority of Americans. Especially when the articles are available globally.--[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::: If the ratio are irrelevant, why do we use them. It just make us look bad, like we fudge numbers as we please. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007 10:30 (AEST)
:::: I'm not sure why Conservapedia tried to use them to discredit Wikipedia, ask the creator. Either way, using statistics in that way, whether correct or not, is misleading and irrelevant. It proves absolutely nothing. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well, it is also not true that more Americans are conservative than liberal. Most Americans are pro-choice, over half of all Americans think that gays should be granted some kind of partnership rights, most Americans support social security, most Americans trust Democrats more on issues such as education, economics. In most recent polls more Americans trust Democras on national security issues than they do Republicans. And if we define conservativism the way that this site does, than it represents a very small minority of American opinion.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive ==

Your participation would be welcomed at the newly created [[Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive]]. Please contact me with any questions, I think this can be a great idea! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Question about edits ==

Hey, I didn't get a reply on the abuse page so I wanted to run this by you... since i think you're the one that archived it"

I'll be honest, I can't tell if [[User:Pwaynes]] is editing in good faith or is a subtle vandal. Here they are in full [2] and here are some of his edits:

In [[Democratic Party]]: "Historically, however, the Democrats have neglected national defense, leaving America weaker."

In [[women]] putting quotes around "Christian" churches that believe women should not have to submit to their husbands.

In [[Barack Obama]]: "Commentators have noted that he has many strikes against him in the eyes of the American people. He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times."

In [[Bill Clinton]]: Removing the fact that Clinton was never charged in the whitewater scandal. (He also removed the fact that GWB didn't receive a majority or a plurality of the vote in 2000 but that was irrelevant anyway).

In [[censorship]]: "and is often justified as the material in question is usual obscene, pornographic, satanic, or otherwise harmful."

In [[George H.W. Bush]]: "The Bush dynasty is generally considered to be one of the greatest american political families, along with the Adams. This is in contrast to the irresponsible and wreckless Kennedy family."

These statements are all unsourced... as the bias implicated is opposed to my bias but possibly in line with the website, I leave it up to you to decide if these are in good faith. Myk 18:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since I reported this:

In [[New York(state)]] : "It is a widely recognized liberal hotbed."

In [[Pachactui]] : Pachactui is a fictional Japanese Pokemon. He is a yellow, electric, mouse-like creature, and is known for shouting "Pachactui!" OK... this is definitely vandalism as he is clearly referencing Pikachu. Still, I would like to know if the others are vandalism also so I know what to report.

Anyways... all of his edits are of the same tone. Were this wikipedia, I would have no qualms about reverting 90% of his edits... but maybe that is my liberal bias. What is Conservapedia's stance on these edits? Oh, and he's removed the stub tags on every one of the articles that has had them. Myk 21:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Your Hitler edit ==
Sorry to say this, but your last Hitler display a rather naive and erroneous understanding of the history of the 3rd Reich. As the article is now, you can better revert it to the version from a few days ago. Even though it is very short, it manages to mispresent a lot of things. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 10:00 (AEST)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-18T22:04:11Z

Jack: /* Discussion of subject */

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2007-03-18T18:35:49Z

Jack: New page: Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous wor...

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-03-18T18:26:58Z

Jack: /* Conservapedia Logo */

== Before Making Your Own Logo Read This ==

The "rules" for creating the logo are as follows:

# The logo has to be 135 x 135 pixels
# The logo cannot utilize a globe as this would be far to close to Wikipedia's logo
# The logo needs to "blend" well with the rest of the site (this is more of a good thing than a rule but your logo will probably not be used if it does not)
# It would be best for any "background" sections of the photo to be transparent

== Conservapedia Logo ==
* Update to my logo. I thought perhaps this might fit the site better.
:: [[Image: Gbnrc.png]] --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: '''Edited. Amended some color balance and readability issues. This should be the final revision. Sorry for the frequent changes.''' --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 12:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Looks good to me. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That looks great! What does everyone else think? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Extremely good! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Is anyone aware when the administration plans to choose a logo? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::We will use this logo, just one thing: Can you make the scroll clearly have "We the People" (from the Constitution) on it? Thanks [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 14:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I had wished to do this, and did make an attempt some time ago. However, it seems impossible to have anything clear written on there due to the size constraints. Sorry. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think this logo is perfect. It is very cool looking and midieval. Fits the sight really well.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 14:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I understand. We have put it up for now (clear your cache if it does not show up). However, it would be nice to have a logo that better shows what Conservapedia is about. [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'll endeavor to deliver a version some time today. Keep your eye on this page.

* This is a rudimentary attempt at a logo. The colors may not be ideal for the purpose, but I tried for a combination of a 'founding fathers' feel (symbolizing the conservative ideology) and modern spin, to match the online nature of this project.
:: [[Image:conservapedia_logo_small.png]]
The difficulty comes form trying to squeeze something into the size allotment. I'd like to provide a bigger version too, but I'm having trouble with the uploading right now. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 19:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::With regards to this new logo...do you remember the historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Magna Carta? All of them were done by hand, with a quill dipped in ink, and on none of them is there evidence of a mistake in writing, nor is there a blob of dripped ink; those writers paid attention to detail. I take the new logo to mean that time, effort, and attention to detail is going to make each article here outstanding in a similar way; all we have to do is put in the effort. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==
*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)
:: I don't like the above one. Republican and conservative are not the same thing. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::: Nor do I, for three reasons:
# We are not the house Wiki of the [[Republican Party]] of the [[United States]].
## As a corollary to the above, the Republican Party owns that image and we have no right to use it.
# Many who call themselves "Republicans" are not conservative by any reasonable definition of the word.
# Many conservatives have abandoned the Republican Party in favor of a [[third party]]. Shall we, then, leave them out?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG]]
This is my logo suggestion --JessicaS 11:41, 7 January 2007 (EST)

*Jessica, your logo is nice. I would suggest that you give the letters a little more room at the edges. Also, you might try cropping it to a square with rounded corners. Here is what I came up with based on Ben's excellent idea:
[[Image:Another_logo.jpg|300px]]
As I said before, I really like this one. Thank you for the great idea Ben! Let me know what you think of it.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I think the background earth is too vivid, it should be maybe light blue and green.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)

OK. I'll do that in a minute. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

I really don't like either of the two "globe" logos. We are an AMERICAN encyclopedia. If you want to put something behind the logo put a map of America. Also, Wikipedia uses a globe, we don't want something so similar... definitely no globe [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:56, 7 January 2007 (EST)

True, the globe thing is a little to close to Wikipedia's logo. My next one will be "Conservapedia" over a blue and green map of America. ~ Sharon

Actually, now that I think of it, although we do favor the American spelling of words, we have contributors from all around the world. Just something to think about. ~ Sharie

I noticed something interesting about Wikipedia's logo. It reflects their mission statement "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" it the way it has a missing puzzle piece. I wonder if we could come up with something that reflects "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". If anyone has any ideas put them on here. ~ Sharie

'''REPLY''': Yes, it is true that we favor American spellings for words and that we have contributors worldwide, but this is beside the point. Conservapedia is American, unlike Wikipedia which even though it is located in America, does not support America openly. It is very disappointing that this America-based website does not show its patriotism openly. Conservapedia will always show that it is proud to be American. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*I have mixed feelings on this issue. Yes, we do want to support America, but we also do not want to exclude other countries from Conservapedia. If I lived in Ireland or some other country and stumbled upon Conservapedia one day and saw a map of America on the logo, I would conclude that Conservapedia was an American encyclopedia, which is true. But, I think that the map of America would cause me to conclude that contributions from other countries were not wanted. We certainly do not want to exclude people from other countries in this way. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Comment''' I think that this particular logo (above) is the best so far.

As to the little debate you are having, I think that a globe is a very appropriate encyclopedia logo; we hope to have facts in our encyclopedia that relate to the '''''entire world''''', not just America. The fact that we require american spellings does not mean we only want information about america. ''The logo should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.''

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservalogo.gif]]

How about something like this

The background looks too dull along with that red color, which really hurts my eyes, but it will probably look much better after some color changes. ~ Sharon

Or This
[[Image:Conservalogo2.gif]]

That looks much better! The other map looked like goggles or something. ~ Sharon

These look pretty good Sharon. However, remember that we want the logo to "blend" well with the rest of the site. These logos would kind of clash with the other colors... if you know what I mean. Sorry for being so negative ;) [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*Oh, those are actually Tim's. I just commented on them. I was instaling all my graphics designs software on this computer and am going to make some more logos tonight. Also, don't worry about being negative in your comments. If everyone tries to be nice all the time, nothing gets done. Since we are all friends, contructive criticism won't hurt anybody's feelings and will help us come out with a really excellent logo. ~ Sharie

[[Image:CLOGO3.gif]]
Or this

Here is another logo in softer colors with soft edges. I also changed the fonts around a little, but can put them back the other way if you don't like these.

[[Image:Yet_Another_Logo.jpg|300px]]

I know it still needs quite a bit of work so please critique it! --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I changed my mind. The more I see, the less I like the idea of the logo being based on a map or globe. I think something made up of several different pieces that reflect our "mission," including things like a a cross, an american flag, a bible, etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:21, 8 January 2007 (EST)

How about something like this:
[[Image:Conservapidialogo01.JPG]]

I like it! Once again, the colors are a little too bright (on my monitor at any rate), but it is a good start. I really like the American flag in it. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:51, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I think that the bright colors are good. It may be a bit much when you see it big like that, but if it is small and in the corner of the screen it will help it be more noticable. You don't want the logo to blend so much that it "hides" in the corner. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* I still like the other one better (see my last comment). If we do end up using this one, you need to make the "conservapedia" alot bigger. The caption will be almost illegible when this logo is small enough to fit in the corner.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* P.s. I would further complain that the cross does is just plain brown and does not fit the picture; Maybe you should paste one on the flag that is slightly more detailed. also I don't like having the american flag at all; The logo, as I said before, should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.

I disagree: The logo should not reflect all of the information that we have to offer, but the difference between what we have to offer and what other people have to offer. It should reflect our point of view. Nobody is going to look at a logo and say "Oh look, an american flag, they must only have information about america." The logo reflects Christianity and Patriotism, not that we only have information about america and christianity. Even if we did want to do it your way the map would still be a bad idea because it implies geography. The logo I posted is just a concept, not a final product. it took me about 5 minutes. We would certainly want a more detailed cross, and bigger type.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:29, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I never thought about the world map implying geography. Interesting point. Maybe we are putting too much importance on the logo. Although it should look good and reflect the mission of Conservapedia, I wonder if visitors to the site are really going to give the logo much more than a quick glance. I for one don't ever really pay much attention to a site's logo. I think I am going to do something similar to what you did for my next logo. ~ Sharon

: Tim, I agree. Yes, we are getting pretty hung up on this issue. The facts are that we can't use a globe because it's way to close to Wikipedia's logo and that we'll always scare a small amount of people away depending on the logo we have. Even so, this should not intimidate us from placing what we are about in the logo. For now, let's just keep putting out ideas that don't incorporate a globe. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:CLOGOOO1.JPG]]

Tim, I took yours and edited it some. What do you think? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)
[[Image:Cross_flag_mine.png|150px]]

It is pretty good, I think that the color of the lettering needs to change, Dark Green maybe? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

*That looks good Philip. I think the whole thing is a little fuzzy. That's OK for the background, but the lettering needs to be nice and crisp. Tim, I don't think that dark green lettering fits with the color scheme of this logo. Here is my version of this logo:

[[Image:Logo4.jpg|300px]]

Let me know what you think. Oh, and tell me if you want me to lay off the cross-in-C thing. Nobody commented on it so I just figured I'd keep using it, but if you don't like it please don't hesitate to tell me. I like this patriotic theme! It makes me think of the Fourth of July. :P ~ Sharon

'''Just Wondering'''
Does the logo have to include the word conservapedia? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply''' I don't think so, but I usually include it because the logo doesn't seem to look complete without it. ~ Sharon

I was thinking that we could keep the logo seperate from the word. That way we can have the word above it or next to it or something, or we could decide to not have the word anywhere near it.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:00, 8 January 2007 (EST)

That would probably look better. I will see if I can come up with anything. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:03, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but the logo needs to be 135x135 pixels. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:14, 9 January 2007 (EST)

OK! ~ Sharon

How's This

[[Image:Conservapedia.JPG|Thumb|135Px]]

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 22:21, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*I think we have decided not to use a globe on our logo because it is too much like Wikipedia's logo. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 06:38, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**Yes, we did. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:03, 16 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo.gif]]

It's simple, but I think it is pretty cool. Tell me what you think....I can always modify it: slower, faster, different effect. [[User:David R|David R]]
*David, that's pretty cool but I think that anything animated would be very distracting when someone is trying to edit/read content on the site. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree. It was just an attempt at sparking a little creativity among all these crosses and globes. [[User:David R|David R]]

**Um, just a quick point here: while using the Cross is nice, you're going to have problems with the conservative Jews that may wish to use the site. Perhaps we should find a completely new idea that doesn't make our fellow ''conservatives'' uncomfortable. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:26, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*** Well, considering the project is officialy Christian and conservative... I do however understand how such editors might feel more uncomfortable editing a project that used an avowedly Christian symbol. I'd be more concerned about the Church/State implications of such a symbol, but that might just be me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo2.jpg]]

There you go...135x135, mainly transparent, good color theme. Comments or suggestions would be appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]

*That looks really good! I didn't realize it was here until now, or I would have commented sooner. What does everyone else think? I think it looks good enough to use right away. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)
** I agree with Sharon, this is a good one. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I like it --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

*Great! As soon as Philip and Mr. Schlafly are back from economics, we can get their opinions. If they like, maybe Philip can figure out how to put it up for us! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

As I said on the Talk page, I like it too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't like it at all. Although the general idea is ok, it's not professional. Frankly, it looks like it was done on Paint. And the first thought that came to my mind when I saw it was the Fourth of July.

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

:Paint Shop Pro, thank you very much. :) What do you think would make it look more professional? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:22, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I'm not quite sure how David could make it any more "professional". I think it looks awesome now. Also, this is an American encyclopedia, so if the logo reminds you of the Fourth of July, that's a good thing. If there is a lot of controversy over using this logo, perhaps we can take a vote. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:30, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, I could draw it a suit, tie, and tophat. Now ''that's'' professional! :P. But, seriously, this logo will be an image of what Conservapedia stands for. '''Any''' and all suggestions are welcomed. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: WOW!!!! I just discovered this page. These logos are all fantastic!!!! Please pick and implement whatever you think is best! We can always improve it in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[image:Oldwikipedialogo.png|135px|right|Wikipedia logo, circa 2002]]
:::::I'm a little concerned about transparency. You posted it as a .jpg and .jpg doesn't allow for transparency. I hope you did the original in a format like .gif or .png which does, and kept the original. If not, you may have lost the transparency for good, because not only does .jpg not have transparency, after you do the conversion to .jpg not all the "white" areas are actually pure white, so it's not easy to make them transparent again.

[[image:logowithborder.png|135px|left]]
:::::I'm not sure the transparency is really all that important, though. One thing you might try is the effect adding a simple one-pixel black border, and see if that gives a crisper appearance against the greyish background. Just my $0.02.

:::::But really, it doesn't matter, just do something. Wikipedia's early logo didn't look as good as this one--at right is Wikipedia's logo circa 2002--and it can always be changed later. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree, we can always change the logo easily in the future. There is really no excuse not to have one. David's latest logo has been approved by most of the regular users. If Philip thinks its alright too, then I think we should go ahead and use it! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Yeah, I'd like to see how it looks as the logo. If it doesn't look good, then I can make the necessary adjustments or we can just scrap it and go down a different route. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:03, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::I don't really like David's logo with the border. It seems to me that it boxes it in too much and prevents it from fading smoothly into the background. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I just notices something about Dave's logo. If the flag is hanging (which it appears to be doing), shouldn't the stars be on the opposite side (the left side)? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:12, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::It could go either way. It just depends which side of the flag you're on. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I just submitted some more entries on my talk page. Let me know what you guys think about them. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It can be seen either way. Traditionally, it is seen the way I drew it...rotated 90 degrees clockwise, of course. If you would like it on the left, I can do that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: No, I am positive now that it can only be flown with the stars on the left. See [http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html this]. Rule 14,8 esp. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Ughh, Philip, getting so technical. Fine. Would you like me to switch it? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedialogo7.png|135px|left‎]]

This was just a hypothetical draft, if people like the colors/imagery then say and I'll develop it more. I'm happy to contribute --[[User:Gaijin|Gaijin]] 15:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==My version==
[[Image:Conserva_flag.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Based on the "C" logo above, and a flag image I found online. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I used Windows Paint to do it in all of 12 minutes. Personally, I would keep the flag background, and transform the "C" logo into something more "crystalized", aka Windows Vista, and have it or both stand out in a 3-D effect. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I like it --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Did the site that you retrieved the image from give specific permission for reproduction and alteration of the image in it's copyright statement? If not, it's probably illegal. And since I, like much of you lot here, am a Christian, albeit an Australian one, I shall refer you to Romans 13:1-7 for the bibles' policy on breaking the law. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 01:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Another one==
[[Image:Conservaflags.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Logo has the naval signal flags spelling "DUTY", from Admiral Nelson's famous signal on HMS Victory at Trafalgar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Logo discussion from Talk:Main_Page==

:How about a crucifix, or a picture of the bible? Something obviously christian [[User:HomoErectus|HomoErectus]]
::Howabout this? [[Image:Conservapedia-logo2.png]]. I just made it. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Whatever you use as a logo, please don't use the Earth, since this website is not an accurate representation of global beliefs in any way, shape, or form. Using a cross and the U.S. flag, and maybe something like "4004 B.C." since half the site is about creationism, would be more accurate. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-03-18T18:26:34Z

Jack: /* Conservapedia Logo */

== Before Making Your Own Logo Read This ==

The "rules" for creating the logo are as follows:

# The logo has to be 135 x 135 pixels
# The logo cannot utilize a globe as this would be far to close to Wikipedia's logo
# The logo needs to "blend" well with the rest of the site (this is more of a good thing than a rule but your logo will probably not be used if it does not)
# It would be best for any "background" sections of the photo to be transparent

== Conservapedia Logo ==
* Update to my logo. I thought perhaps this might fit the site better.
:: [[Image: Gbnrc.png]] --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: '''Edited. Amended some color balance and readability issues. This should be the final revision. Sorry for the frequent changes.''' --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 12:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Looks good to me. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That looks great! What does everyone else think? ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Extremely good! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Is anyone aware when the administration plans to choose a logo? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::We will use this logo, just one thing: Can you make the scroll clearly have "We the People" (from the Constitution) on it? Thanks [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 14:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I had wished to do this, and did make an attempt some time ago. However, it seems impossible to have anything clear written on there due to the size constraints. Sorry. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think this logo is perfect. It is very cool looking and midieval. Fits the sight really well.

:::: I understand. We have put it up for now (clear your cache if it does not show up). However, it would be nice to have a logo that better shows what Conservapedia is about. [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'll endeavor to deliver a version some time today. Keep your eye on this page.

* This is a rudimentary attempt at a logo. The colors may not be ideal for the purpose, but I tried for a combination of a 'founding fathers' feel (symbolizing the conservative ideology) and modern spin, to match the online nature of this project.
:: [[Image:conservapedia_logo_small.png]]
The difficulty comes form trying to squeeze something into the size allotment. I'd like to provide a bigger version too, but I'm having trouble with the uploading right now. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 19:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::With regards to this new logo...do you remember the historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Magna Carta? All of them were done by hand, with a quill dipped in ink, and on none of them is there evidence of a mistake in writing, nor is there a blob of dripped ink; those writers paid attention to detail. I take the new logo to mean that time, effort, and attention to detail is going to make each article here outstanding in a similar way; all we have to do is put in the effort. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==
*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)
:: I don't like the above one. Republican and conservative are not the same thing. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::: Nor do I, for three reasons:
# We are not the house Wiki of the [[Republican Party]] of the [[United States]].
## As a corollary to the above, the Republican Party owns that image and we have no right to use it.
# Many who call themselves "Republicans" are not conservative by any reasonable definition of the word.
# Many conservatives have abandoned the Republican Party in favor of a [[third party]]. Shall we, then, leave them out?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG]]
This is my logo suggestion --JessicaS 11:41, 7 January 2007 (EST)

*Jessica, your logo is nice. I would suggest that you give the letters a little more room at the edges. Also, you might try cropping it to a square with rounded corners. Here is what I came up with based on Ben's excellent idea:
[[Image:Another_logo.jpg|300px]]
As I said before, I really like this one. Thank you for the great idea Ben! Let me know what you think of it.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I think the background earth is too vivid, it should be maybe light blue and green.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)

OK. I'll do that in a minute. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

I really don't like either of the two "globe" logos. We are an AMERICAN encyclopedia. If you want to put something behind the logo put a map of America. Also, Wikipedia uses a globe, we don't want something so similar... definitely no globe [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:56, 7 January 2007 (EST)

True, the globe thing is a little to close to Wikipedia's logo. My next one will be "Conservapedia" over a blue and green map of America. ~ Sharon

Actually, now that I think of it, although we do favor the American spelling of words, we have contributors from all around the world. Just something to think about. ~ Sharie

I noticed something interesting about Wikipedia's logo. It reflects their mission statement "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" it the way it has a missing puzzle piece. I wonder if we could come up with something that reflects "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". If anyone has any ideas put them on here. ~ Sharie

'''REPLY''': Yes, it is true that we favor American spellings for words and that we have contributors worldwide, but this is beside the point. Conservapedia is American, unlike Wikipedia which even though it is located in America, does not support America openly. It is very disappointing that this America-based website does not show its patriotism openly. Conservapedia will always show that it is proud to be American. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*I have mixed feelings on this issue. Yes, we do want to support America, but we also do not want to exclude other countries from Conservapedia. If I lived in Ireland or some other country and stumbled upon Conservapedia one day and saw a map of America on the logo, I would conclude that Conservapedia was an American encyclopedia, which is true. But, I think that the map of America would cause me to conclude that contributions from other countries were not wanted. We certainly do not want to exclude people from other countries in this way. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Comment''' I think that this particular logo (above) is the best so far.

As to the little debate you are having, I think that a globe is a very appropriate encyclopedia logo; we hope to have facts in our encyclopedia that relate to the '''''entire world''''', not just America. The fact that we require american spellings does not mean we only want information about america. ''The logo should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.''

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservalogo.gif]]

How about something like this

The background looks too dull along with that red color, which really hurts my eyes, but it will probably look much better after some color changes. ~ Sharon

Or This
[[Image:Conservalogo2.gif]]

That looks much better! The other map looked like goggles or something. ~ Sharon

These look pretty good Sharon. However, remember that we want the logo to "blend" well with the rest of the site. These logos would kind of clash with the other colors... if you know what I mean. Sorry for being so negative ;) [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*Oh, those are actually Tim's. I just commented on them. I was instaling all my graphics designs software on this computer and am going to make some more logos tonight. Also, don't worry about being negative in your comments. If everyone tries to be nice all the time, nothing gets done. Since we are all friends, contructive criticism won't hurt anybody's feelings and will help us come out with a really excellent logo. ~ Sharie

[[Image:CLOGO3.gif]]
Or this

Here is another logo in softer colors with soft edges. I also changed the fonts around a little, but can put them back the other way if you don't like these.

[[Image:Yet_Another_Logo.jpg|300px]]

I know it still needs quite a bit of work so please critique it! --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I changed my mind. The more I see, the less I like the idea of the logo being based on a map or globe. I think something made up of several different pieces that reflect our "mission," including things like a a cross, an american flag, a bible, etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:21, 8 January 2007 (EST)

How about something like this:
[[Image:Conservapidialogo01.JPG]]

I like it! Once again, the colors are a little too bright (on my monitor at any rate), but it is a good start. I really like the American flag in it. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:51, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I think that the bright colors are good. It may be a bit much when you see it big like that, but if it is small and in the corner of the screen it will help it be more noticable. You don't want the logo to blend so much that it "hides" in the corner. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* I still like the other one better (see my last comment). If we do end up using this one, you need to make the "conservapedia" alot bigger. The caption will be almost illegible when this logo is small enough to fit in the corner.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* P.s. I would further complain that the cross does is just plain brown and does not fit the picture; Maybe you should paste one on the flag that is slightly more detailed. also I don't like having the american flag at all; The logo, as I said before, should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.

I disagree: The logo should not reflect all of the information that we have to offer, but the difference between what we have to offer and what other people have to offer. It should reflect our point of view. Nobody is going to look at a logo and say "Oh look, an american flag, they must only have information about america." The logo reflects Christianity and Patriotism, not that we only have information about america and christianity. Even if we did want to do it your way the map would still be a bad idea because it implies geography. The logo I posted is just a concept, not a final product. it took me about 5 minutes. We would certainly want a more detailed cross, and bigger type.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:29, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I never thought about the world map implying geography. Interesting point. Maybe we are putting too much importance on the logo. Although it should look good and reflect the mission of Conservapedia, I wonder if visitors to the site are really going to give the logo much more than a quick glance. I for one don't ever really pay much attention to a site's logo. I think I am going to do something similar to what you did for my next logo. ~ Sharon

: Tim, I agree. Yes, we are getting pretty hung up on this issue. The facts are that we can't use a globe because it's way to close to Wikipedia's logo and that we'll always scare a small amount of people away depending on the logo we have. Even so, this should not intimidate us from placing what we are about in the logo. For now, let's just keep putting out ideas that don't incorporate a globe. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:CLOGOOO1.JPG]]

Tim, I took yours and edited it some. What do you think? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)
[[Image:Cross_flag_mine.png|150px]]

It is pretty good, I think that the color of the lettering needs to change, Dark Green maybe? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

*That looks good Philip. I think the whole thing is a little fuzzy. That's OK for the background, but the lettering needs to be nice and crisp. Tim, I don't think that dark green lettering fits with the color scheme of this logo. Here is my version of this logo:

[[Image:Logo4.jpg|300px]]

Let me know what you think. Oh, and tell me if you want me to lay off the cross-in-C thing. Nobody commented on it so I just figured I'd keep using it, but if you don't like it please don't hesitate to tell me. I like this patriotic theme! It makes me think of the Fourth of July. :P ~ Sharon

'''Just Wondering'''
Does the logo have to include the word conservapedia? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply''' I don't think so, but I usually include it because the logo doesn't seem to look complete without it. ~ Sharon

I was thinking that we could keep the logo seperate from the word. That way we can have the word above it or next to it or something, or we could decide to not have the word anywhere near it.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:00, 8 January 2007 (EST)

That would probably look better. I will see if I can come up with anything. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:03, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but the logo needs to be 135x135 pixels. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:14, 9 January 2007 (EST)

OK! ~ Sharon

How's This

[[Image:Conservapedia.JPG|Thumb|135Px]]

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 22:21, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*I think we have decided not to use a globe on our logo because it is too much like Wikipedia's logo. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 06:38, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**Yes, we did. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:03, 16 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo.gif]]

It's simple, but I think it is pretty cool. Tell me what you think....I can always modify it: slower, faster, different effect. [[User:David R|David R]]
*David, that's pretty cool but I think that anything animated would be very distracting when someone is trying to edit/read content on the site. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree. It was just an attempt at sparking a little creativity among all these crosses and globes. [[User:David R|David R]]

**Um, just a quick point here: while using the Cross is nice, you're going to have problems with the conservative Jews that may wish to use the site. Perhaps we should find a completely new idea that doesn't make our fellow ''conservatives'' uncomfortable. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:26, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*** Well, considering the project is officialy Christian and conservative... I do however understand how such editors might feel more uncomfortable editing a project that used an avowedly Christian symbol. I'd be more concerned about the Church/State implications of such a symbol, but that might just be me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo2.jpg]]

There you go...135x135, mainly transparent, good color theme. Comments or suggestions would be appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]

*That looks really good! I didn't realize it was here until now, or I would have commented sooner. What does everyone else think? I think it looks good enough to use right away. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)
** I agree with Sharon, this is a good one. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I like it --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

*Great! As soon as Philip and Mr. Schlafly are back from economics, we can get their opinions. If they like, maybe Philip can figure out how to put it up for us! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

As I said on the Talk page, I like it too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't like it at all. Although the general idea is ok, it's not professional. Frankly, it looks like it was done on Paint. And the first thought that came to my mind when I saw it was the Fourth of July.

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

:Paint Shop Pro, thank you very much. :) What do you think would make it look more professional? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:22, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I'm not quite sure how David could make it any more "professional". I think it looks awesome now. Also, this is an American encyclopedia, so if the logo reminds you of the Fourth of July, that's a good thing. If there is a lot of controversy over using this logo, perhaps we can take a vote. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:30, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, I could draw it a suit, tie, and tophat. Now ''that's'' professional! :P. But, seriously, this logo will be an image of what Conservapedia stands for. '''Any''' and all suggestions are welcomed. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: WOW!!!! I just discovered this page. These logos are all fantastic!!!! Please pick and implement whatever you think is best! We can always improve it in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[image:Oldwikipedialogo.png|135px|right|Wikipedia logo, circa 2002]]
:::::I'm a little concerned about transparency. You posted it as a .jpg and .jpg doesn't allow for transparency. I hope you did the original in a format like .gif or .png which does, and kept the original. If not, you may have lost the transparency for good, because not only does .jpg not have transparency, after you do the conversion to .jpg not all the "white" areas are actually pure white, so it's not easy to make them transparent again.

[[image:logowithborder.png|135px|left]]
:::::I'm not sure the transparency is really all that important, though. One thing you might try is the effect adding a simple one-pixel black border, and see if that gives a crisper appearance against the greyish background. Just my $0.02.

:::::But really, it doesn't matter, just do something. Wikipedia's early logo didn't look as good as this one--at right is Wikipedia's logo circa 2002--and it can always be changed later. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree, we can always change the logo easily in the future. There is really no excuse not to have one. David's latest logo has been approved by most of the regular users. If Philip thinks its alright too, then I think we should go ahead and use it! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Yeah, I'd like to see how it looks as the logo. If it doesn't look good, then I can make the necessary adjustments or we can just scrap it and go down a different route. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:03, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::I don't really like David's logo with the border. It seems to me that it boxes it in too much and prevents it from fading smoothly into the background. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I just notices something about Dave's logo. If the flag is hanging (which it appears to be doing), shouldn't the stars be on the opposite side (the left side)? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:12, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::It could go either way. It just depends which side of the flag you're on. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I just submitted some more entries on my talk page. Let me know what you guys think about them. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It can be seen either way. Traditionally, it is seen the way I drew it...rotated 90 degrees clockwise, of course. If you would like it on the left, I can do that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: No, I am positive now that it can only be flown with the stars on the left. See [http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html this]. Rule 14,8 esp. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Ughh, Philip, getting so technical. Fine. Would you like me to switch it? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedialogo7.png|135px|left‎]]

This was just a hypothetical draft, if people like the colors/imagery then say and I'll develop it more. I'm happy to contribute --[[User:Gaijin|Gaijin]] 15:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==My version==
[[Image:Conserva_flag.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Based on the "C" logo above, and a flag image I found online. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I used Windows Paint to do it in all of 12 minutes. Personally, I would keep the flag background, and transform the "C" logo into something more "crystalized", aka Windows Vista, and have it or both stand out in a 3-D effect. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I like it --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Did the site that you retrieved the image from give specific permission for reproduction and alteration of the image in it's copyright statement? If not, it's probably illegal. And since I, like much of you lot here, am a Christian, albeit an Australian one, I shall refer you to Romans 13:1-7 for the bibles' policy on breaking the law. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 01:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Another one==
[[Image:Conservaflags.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Logo has the naval signal flags spelling "DUTY", from Admiral Nelson's famous signal on HMS Victory at Trafalgar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Logo discussion from Talk:Main_Page==

:How about a crucifix, or a picture of the bible? Something obviously christian [[User:HomoErectus|HomoErectus]]
::Howabout this? [[Image:Conservapedia-logo2.png]]. I just made it. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Whatever you use as a logo, please don't use the Earth, since this website is not an accurate representation of global beliefs in any way, shape, or form. Using a cross and the U.S. flag, and maybe something like "4004 B.C." since half the site is about creationism, would be more accurate. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Bill Clinton

2007-03-18T18:21:53Z

Jack: /* Presidency and Impeachment */

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|right|300px|United States President Bill Clinton]]
'''William''' "Bill" '''Jefferson Clinton''' served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

== Early Life ==
----

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the four year-old William was given his stepfather's name.[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html]

Clinton was active in high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children.'''(sources needed)''' Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing him to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. '''(sources needed)''' After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabiliation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after winning a [[Rhodes Scholarship]], and finally earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973 ADE. At Yale he met [[Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career and Whitewater Scandal ==
----

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976 AD. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country as a 32 year-old. Though defeated in 1980 AD, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 AD and held it until becoming President in 1992 AD. Some business transactions he while made were extensively investigated for years (the [[Whitewater]] scandal).

== Presidency and Impeachment==
----
Despite never winning a majority of the popular vote during either of his elections, President Clinton was a very popular president, particularly during his second term.[http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm] Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a popular third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States by some sort of government-backed universal health-care insurance, which many conservatives felt would result in effective government control of the health care system. '''(sources needed)''' His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. '''(sources needed)''' The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee members, and Clinton ultimately failed to pass the program.'''(sources needed)'''

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a victory to Republicans in Congress, where Republicans won 49.9% of the popular vote (compared to the Democrat's 44%). This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress.'''(sources needed)''' These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government if he did not have his way. '''(sources needed)'''When Clinton called his bluff, Gingrich caused the federal government to shut down for several days.'''(sources needed)''' Clinton did not cave, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approval ratings, which would remain above 60% for most of his presidency[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 with 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. Clinton spent a lot of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. '''(sources needed)''' A special prosecutor was named to investigate Clinton for allegations of impropriety in the Whitewater real-estate scandal, an investment of Clinton's in a failed real estate venture. '''(sources needed)''' Although no charges against Clinton came out of this investigation, and it turned out that Clinton actually lost money on his investment, one of the results of the investigation was that the special prosecutor turned to investigating other Clinton activities, one of which (the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal) resulted in his impeachment and eventual loss of his license to practice law for a period of 5 years.'''(sources needed)''' The main charge was that he lied about a sexual relationship with an employee in an attempt to avoid paying damages to another employee for sexual harassment. After a brief trial, the Senate acquitted Clinton of all charges.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/impeachment/</ref>

Clinton became just the second sitting president to be impeached by the US House of Representatives during his second term for lying in grand jury testimony connected to the Paula Jones lawsuit.'''(sources needed)''' However, the US Senate voted not to remove him from office, although he later lost his law license in Arkansas. His term also saw an increase in terrorism directed at the United States. '''(sources needed)''' These incidents included the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. '''(sources needed)''' Clinton responded by striking back at [[al Qaeda]], the organization responsible for the attacks. '''(sources needed)''' He launched cruise missile strikes aimed to kill al Qaeda's leader [[Osama bin Laden]] [http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/], and began planning to invade [[Afghanistan]] in order to capture bin Laden and overthrow the [[Taliban]] government[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml].

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. '''(sources needed)''' A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

Clinton devoted much time during his two terms to the peace process in Northern Ireland. '''(sources needed)''' He made interventions including 3 trips to Ireland during periods of stagnation in negotiations which coincided in major breakthroughs which ensured the province didn't slide back to the violence of the 70's and 80's. '''(sources needed)'''

== After the Presidency ==
----

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fundraising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Mikhail Kalashnikov

2007-03-18T01:45:13Z

Jack:

Why does China fear the AK-47? A citation of some sort seems in order. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 22:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: This is a terribly written article.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh, no wonder. aschafley wrote it.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mikhail Kalashnikov

2007-03-18T01:43:23Z

Jack:

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-17T21:47:39Z

Jack: