Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

File talk:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg

2008-12-05T03:58:36Z

Jedibob5:

[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/08/obama-calls-internet-accusation-a-dirty-trick/ Obama cals Internet accusation a dirty trick]

This is from Time.com, and almost certainly not fair use.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

FAKE!!! Can anyone say FAKE!!!! The proportions of the people are completely off according to their distance, and look at the bottom of the flag. the red stripe just disappears!!! [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 11:23, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:The stripe doesn't "disappear", it is hidden by the bales of hay. --[[User:HenryB|HenryB]] 12:08, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::Uh, it's still a ridiculously stupid photoshop. The person on the far right is barely 10 feet away, whilst her size relative to Obama would be more like 20 feet away. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 22:58, 4 December 2008 (EST)
== Can we change the name at least? ==

We know that its not happening during the pledge, can we change the name to reflect that?

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-08-05T16:13:22Z

Jedibob5:

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Regarding deletion of bios of conservative people: If you can back up your biography with plenty of sources independent of the subject, then the "police" will approve. For more check out Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) notability guideline for people]. Notability trumps any ideology, liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, radical, you-name-it. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Wikipedia does not follow its own policies. If wikipedia was actually neutral, why would it delete the page for Al Gore III [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Al_Gore_III] while keeping the page for Mary Cheney [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney]? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Regarding Al Gore III: the article was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_(8th_nomination) deleted in February 2008] after Wikipedians decided that they just couldn't write a biography of him that met the "biographies of living persons" and "notability (people)" standards. If you actually read the Wikitruth archived version you provided, you'll probably find out that it's full of gossip and doesn't explain ''why'' he's relevant to the world beyond being given his 15 news headlines of fame due to minor injuries and run-ins with the law. Furthermore, WP's people notability page states that "notability is not inherited" - in other words just because a certain person meets WP's notability standard doesn't mean that his/her friends, relatives, or associates are as well. Among all the sources cited in that "article", the sources that focus on him are about his legal run-ins, and the less distressing sources have him not as the focus of the article.
:::::On the other hand regarding Mary Cheney: the article does assert that she is relevant to society, as she has worked for Coors (one of the most prominent beer breweries in America) and the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign, and her "marriage" has been a subject of much debate in the news media given VP Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage. She also wrote an autobiography that was published in 2006.
:::::Thus, WP deleted the Al Gore III article but kept the Mary Cheney article because Cheney is so much more noted and discussed in the media than AG3 has been. BTW, I'll go on WP later and expand on AG3 on the Al Gore article.--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:56, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that ''all'' other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that ''most'' scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Level of support for evolution] article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support Scientific support] section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/Archive_3#Newsweek_article article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive]. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: : REPLY TO ASCHLAFLY: Not sure why you describe what I presented as "gossip". The details concerning JBS member connections to AAPS come from AAPS publications. Is that "gossip"? The info I provided regarding comments made by top FBI officials originate in FBI internal memos---all of which I have in my possession. Is that "gossip"? You can certainly disagree with their judgments -- but why misrepresent and de-value the quality of the data as nothing more than "gossip"? {{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

::: You lack dates, sources or logic for your gossipy accusations. The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your larger point (i.e. unsavory people belong to all sorts of organizations) -- yes, that's true but you conveniently ignore the salient difference i.e. such individuals did not represent the official position of those organizations nor were they knowingly embraced by such organizations. In fact, if "Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc." were identified -- most organizations would expel them. BY CONTRAST, AAPS enthusiastically welcomed JBS members and even invited them to be speakers and exhibitors at AAPS functions!
:JBS itself doesn't deny that it's hired AAPS members. Examples include Nathaniel Adamson, Ray Clark, and Arthur Crino. [http://www.jbs.org/index.php/about/john-birch-society-national-council].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 22:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections'''

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
: For more about how WP deals with these "Criticism/Controversy" sections read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Wikipedia's guideline on including Criticism] --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:46, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
'''Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not ''explicitly'' state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: "Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.

: The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:: If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: "Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.

::::So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend ''your side'' in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.

::::I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]], aka [[User:OneAgainstRepression|OneAgainstRepression]] 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

'''Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review'''

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=221432211 13:49, 24 June 2008]) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: This article is ''examples of bias'' in Wikipedia. I think you want the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Six times==
I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." However further down the ''same page'' I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Aschlafly==
Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Barak Obama==
I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Title of the article==
I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars" ==

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed here]. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=frT&q=%22nominal+dollars%22+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 here] and found that the only movie that shows up is ''Expelled''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#.22In_nominal_dollars.3F.22 My complaint] against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (''An Inconvenient Truth''), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that ''Expelled'' is newer than ''An Inconvenient Truth''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin here], which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design this]. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?==

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Kind of old. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece ==

Check it out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining here]. Also see the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quote_mining here]. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate" ==

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Block message on user page]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=223450235#Disruptive_editor_User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Admin noticeboard history]

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:That user was blocked for his provocatively anti-semitic edits, not his name. Perhaps he should have stuck to posting his right wing garbage over on the [[Stormfront]] forums. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::But that's not the reason given for blocking him. And I looked at his edits. I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It says in very clear letters: '''"This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that the account is only being used for vandalism."''' The fact that the name could be further construed as an anti-semitic sentiment, given the edit history of the vandal, was mentioned as an additional support for the user account being blocked. The discussion on the admin board is about his propensity for altering articles dealing with Christianity and Judaism to make digs at Jews and Judaism. And they're blatantly obvious. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue you said "I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic". Did you not see this one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=211498797]
or do you not think it is anti-semitic? A quick glance through his contributions show them almost all to be anti-semitic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ChristianityMeansFreedom&namespace=&year=&month=-1]--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

This is cleanly mislead, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament]. All I found is people got wrong ideas. I was thinking about adding to the list, but I'm not sure, yet. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? ==

TSIB. Step back a minute & think about what you are really objecting to in Wikipedia. What you perceive as bias is the exact opposite. Wikipedia explores all subjects and acknowledges diverse attitudes to them, without jumping to conclusions. It maintains a neutral point of view, since any additions have to be backed up with reliable evidence. You may choose to regard this as "liberal bias", but that is only because Wikipedia does not censor and interpret its subjects as Conservapedia does. Conservapedia does not even pretend to have a neutral point of view. It wears its bias on its sleeve and openly propogates intolerant viewpoints. And it's for this exact reason that Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, will never be regarded as a factual or "trustworthy" reference source by the wider community. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 20:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:Please read [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Everything you level as accusations is freely admitted and explained. And incidentally, Wikipedia is not regarded as a factual or trustworthy reference source by most educators and experts. Try to use it as a source on a term paper and you will more than likely get called on it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course wikipedia is not a "trustworthy" reference with regards to the scientific/academic community, and by no means is CP. Any website that is openly editable is inherently un-trustowrthy for academia. Wikipedia, however, is a trustworthy reference for the average user, the user who wants a good overview of the subject in question, the user that wants the facts with as little bias or spin as possible. Wikipedia never claims to be an academic resource (and no decent academic would ever consider it as such, even in highschool, wikipedia is never considerd a "citable" source) but rather a means to get the "gist" of a topic and a gateway to more reliable sources. Do not try and put words in the wikipedia mission statement. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== John Edwards ==
Wikipedia is getting hammered over its censorship of the “John Edwards love child” story [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal] [http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2052379/posts] [http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/]. This story has a gossipy feel and Conservapedia discourages gossip. However, several different outlets have reported it. I think it should be included as an example of wiki’s bias, but would like to know what other people think because of the gossipy nature of the story. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 21:33, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:An entry I made about John Edwards was deleted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=493702&oldid=493701]. This nature of this story is gossipy, but this page is primarily about bias in wikipedia. It’s worth mentioning that wikipedia allows gossipy stories with no credible sources about McCain because he is a Republican, but censors a similar credible story about Edwards because he is a Democrat. Is there a way the entry could be reworded so that it is acceptable? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 18:36, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: You're so right that Wikipedia promotes gossip about conservatives, but immediately deletes it about liberals. This does illustrate Wikipedia's liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:After the John Edwards hotel story became common knowledge, some wikipedia editors attempted to add it to his page. However, a wikipedia administrator deleted that information and locked the page to prevent the story from being included [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&diff=228426613&oldid=228425805]. Locking the pages of liberals when critical stories appear about them in the media is standard operating procedure at wikipedia. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 22:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::As of the time I'm writing this, Wikipedia's article on Edwards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228904206#2008_Presidential_campaign has]:
::"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.[59][60][61] Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."[62]"
::So now that the ''real'' non-tabloid media has gotten to that story, editors have accepted addition of this information as long as this isn't given undue weight. Whew, we just got saved from another stigma on this page! Now, I'd like to make it clear that me & most other WP editors frown upon tabloids (e.g. ''National Enquirer'', ''New York Post'', ''The Sun'') as sources. Regarding "gossip about conservatives": what suddenly came to my mind was that infamous ''[[New York Times]]'' article that accused [[John McCain]] of having an affair with Vicki Iseman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=228831017 WP's article on McCain] makes absolutely no mention of Iseman, but it ''is'' mentioned in WP's article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times&oldid=222054349#John_McCain-lobbyist_article_criticism "Criticism of The New York Times"].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Furthermore, Wikipedia tries hard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.nationalenquirer.com not to source] the ''NatEnq'' in articles. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreeing with this article==
I have to disagree with the statements made in this article, mainly because the people who are writing it have a strong conservative bias, (it seems to assume that all liberals are wrong and immoral, and that their opinions aren't valid) and that Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is not a single entity that creates, reviews, and edits articles, it is millions of people across the globe. With that kind of userbase, bias will be inevitable. It is up to others to notice and repair that bias, as long as they add a properly sourced opinion for the other side, and that they keep original opinions intact. You see, if YOU spot bias, YOU can fix it. For example, for #11, just go fix it! The biography is a valid source, since it is a book and had to be published which has far less margin for error than, let's say, a blog. So just edit the article to say that some claim he is racist, cite the source, leave the so-called "liberal" opinion so it isn't conservatively biased, and you're done! Bias eliminated. A bias is favoring an opinion, whether it be "right" or "wrong", and lack of bias is showing all opinions. Conservapedia has a strong conservative bias, and it should recognize that, and understand that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, and understand the opinions of liberals and why they hold them, even if they disagree. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 15:46, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, "right and wrong is" NOT "in the eye of the beholder," and Wikipedia is ruled by a liberal mob. Trying to fix something there is like trying to reason with a lynch mob. I think several of our points demonstrate what happens when someone tries to correct the bias to certain entries.

: It takes affirmative steps, like laws and even-handed enforcement of them, to prevent lynch mobs from forming. Wikipedia does nothing to curb the bias that even you admit is inevitable.

: As to Conservapedia, it discloses its point of view. Wikipedia should be honest and do the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

::First point, Liberals think that their ideas are "right", and conservatives are "wrong", and conservatives think the exact same thing about liberals. All right and wrong is is an opinion in itself. For instance, I believe that abortion, for instance, is wrong, since it kills a child, while another person over there might think that my ideas are wrong, and that outlawing abortion would strip freedom of choice from women. So the definitions of right and wrong are different from person to person, so really, they are "in the eye of the beholder."

::Second point, lynch mobs? WP goes by consensus when there's a conflict, but you can't compare that to a lynch mob. The United States of America does that during an election, which elects those who will make decisions in our government based on consensus, and the ancient Romans decided on consensus as well back when they were a republic. Lynch mobs act on their own sense of vigilante justice, and care not for consensus.

::Third point, "Wikipedia does nothing to curb the bias that even you admit is inevitable." Well, I don't really think that Conservapedia can really say that they do either, can they? And what WP does about curbing this is relying on the editors to do the corrections. Pointing out bias doesn't mean that Wikipedia condones it, it just means no one has got around to fixing it.

::If you try to blame Wikipedia for being liberally biased, all you are doing is blaming the editors, who, invariably, have different opinions. WP cannot be blamed for the stuff that gets put on it, since WP does not put it on there, editors do. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 12:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
==Baraminology==
"The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist. [6]"

Interestingly, that doesn't seem to be what the Wikipedia article said as of 07:21, 25 July 2008:

<blockquote>Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]</blockquote>

As far as I'm aware, the lack of peer-revied scientific research claim is correct, and worth noting. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I have read somewhere (I don't remember where, so I can't cite it) that there has been one peer-reviewed research study on baraminology that has been published so far. [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 09:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==Curse the darkness, or light a candle?==

I've got to thinking, why do we curse the darkness when we could just light a candle? Instead of coming here to complain about examples of bias on Wikipedia, why not just edit them out when you find them? [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-08-05T15:26:09Z

Jedibob5:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==Most Liberal?==

What about Bernie Sanders?

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you read the article correctly, you would know that Obama is a secret Muslim--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 17:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Franklin Graham (son of Billy) tried to find out is Obama was a Christian. It looks like the answer is no![http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68581]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 16:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually, the quote from that article is that Obama said, 'Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people.' when asked if he believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. All of the accusations in that article indicating that he is a Muslim have already been cited (from the original sources, not an article which cites them in turn) on this or the main page. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you want to get to "informative truth," why isn't the top of John McCain's page about how he sold other POWs out, didn't pay his taxes, and left his crippled wife in the 70's for a beer fortuness that was worth 100 mil and was 18 years younger than him? That would seem biased and mean toward McCain, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would, and it's no different here. We need to have respect for Republicans and Democrats alike, especially the two men who one of them is going to be the President by next January. [[User:Impm|Impm]]

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

Nothing new to add here, except to marvel at the fact that the line is still there and unchanged three months later. I would have thought they'd at least change "likely" to "possible".--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I know many leftists, and none of them seem to hate soldiers. One of my good friends is extremely left-wing (has gay parents), and is ''in'' the military. I'm not sure the "General Betrayus" comment was necessarily anti-military, it seemed more anti-a-specific-person. And what about all of the pro-veteran bills being introduced by Democrats? I think it's ''without a doubt'' that many leftists are anti-war, but I think it's a stretch to say they're anti-soldier.--[[User:Cockamamie|Cockamamie]] 12:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, but McCain accepted 300k from a man who likened rape to bad weather, saying that "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He also told a female competitor for Governor of Texas, the office he was running for, that he would "hog her and tie her and drag her through the dirt." McCain accepted 300,000 dollars for his campaign that this man raised. So I suppose McCain is a raging sexist, too?

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

:: Might not be good enough for this page; they don't seem enough like angry black militants.

Michelle Obama was raised in a middleclass home. She attended an ivy legue college. Might she be the first affirmative-action First Lady, if, a big if BO makes it?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:So only rich white people get into an Ivy League college on their own merit? If you are middle-classed and black, it's automatically affirmative-action? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:18, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The sentence which indicates that Obama wearing a flag pin "might be political pandering" has no reference and no basis in verifiable fact. This comment should be removed. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] is what you are looking for. It seems to me that the first step in complying with this template would be to move most of the intro into the relevant sections in the article. The intro should only include "'''Subject's Name''' (in bold) followed by a brief synopsis of notable positions held or sought." ~ [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 11:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The references being used for this section are incorrect. If you follow the link on the pages you eventually get to this page: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html. There it states: Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The statement being made is blatantly false and has been addressed by the university of Chicago.--[[User:Redragon104|Redragon104]] 14:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why WOULD he change his name?===
The entire portion of the article that discusses this is ridiculous. Why should a person change their name at all? It's similar to saying that a person named Weinstein should change their name if they were a Christian, because "Weinstein" is a Jewish name. This portion of the article has no purpose and should be removed. If you want to show why Obama is a poor choice for president, do so. But juvenile attacks like this just make the people doing it look silly. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:56, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Spot on-- This dirty Muslim clearly mixed up the number of states in the glorious USA with the number of non-observer states in an obscure organization! There is no WAY he could've misspoken, saying fifty-seven instead of fourty seven! [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 18:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Saul didn't change his name to Paul. At one point Luke says, "Saul, who was also called Paul..." and carries the account on from there. This occurs several chapters after his conversion, and it is simply a Greek form of Saul's Hebrew name. For heaven's sake. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 16:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the whole gay thing is that the only source for that is VERY non-credible (Larry Sinclair). The Townhall article wasn't postulating that Obama is in fact a homosexual, but would be the first 'gay' President like Clinton was said to be the first 'black' President, as someone who is believed to strongly advocate for that community and is very much accepted by that community WITHOUT actually being a member. The Huffington Post was a bit of satire and not a serious article. I think that how Islam has influenced Obama is a legitimate topic and should be discussed but by engaging in gossip (Obama is gay) it takes away from the legitimacy of actual concerns that may (and should) be expressed about him. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 16:41, June 21 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Under Published criticism, A fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html] , http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html, June 23, 2008</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches
--[[User:Thedude|Thedude]] 20:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see your typos there any more. Were they fixed?

: As to pointing out how Obama has catered to anti-military donors, that can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hard to be disputed when dispute is not allowed or called "violation of 90/10 rule; talk, talk, talk". --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hmm I still see the typos after refreshing the page. Specifically "thePennsylvania" is in paragraph 4, "president" in paragraph 2, "office..." in paragraph 7 under Presidential Campaign and "either/or" in the last paragraph under "Positions and Qualifications".

:: Perhaps Obama's pandering is obvious, but the current phrasing of "presumably" indicates speculation. But I guess the main concern I had was that the citation #15 isn't relevant to the statement since the main gist of the article is that Obama's actions have "frustrated some anti-war figures" rather than pandered to them. And the action it refers to is his voting record and not his lapel pin.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Corrected "thePennsylvania", but don't see a lowercase "p" in "president" as an error. The trend is towards using more lowercase, and the Economist uses a lowercase "p" for "president".

::: The "presumably" point can hardly be disputed or doubted, and I don't agree with the proposition that "presumably" is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. The citation is helpful because it shows that anti-military support was not guaranteed for Obama, and some pandering was required to obtain that. Of course, improvements in citations are always welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked ==

If the article is locked by a sysop, wouldn't that constitute [[last wordism]]? Obviously only sysops can then decide what may or may not be put in the article, becoming the final arbiters on any discussions. It doesn't seem very egalitarian. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==
Take a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=363195 article's last edit] before he won the Iowa caucus and compare it to the coat rack of half-truths and insinuations that it has become. It saddens me; I was hoping that Conservapedia would develop into a worthy competitor to Wikipedia and that the competition would inspire both sites to improve their content. Alas.

Unfortunately, this article now seems to be attempting to fulfill a political agenda instead of act as an encyclopedia. Of the myriad goals this article sets out to accomplish, the attempt to paint Obama as an anti-American secret Muslim is the most disgusting. Sure, he made a mistake and said 57 states. I look at that statement and think, "So he said fifty instead of forty." But instead of ignoring an obvious mistake and focusing on actual political issues, they assume his mind was wandering to the membership number of the Organization of Islamic States. That's not a remotely logical jump; perhaps a more reasonable one would be Interstate 57, which bisects his home state of Illinois? Personally, I just think the man was a tad tired - he was, after all, campaigning non-stop for six months straight.

Furthermore, the Muslim misdirection seems to me to be a direct attempt to play on people's fears. People are afraid of what's different, so the goal is to make him as different as possible. Hillary tried the same tactic; she, with ten times his earnings, managed to convince Pennsylvania that a biracial man abandoned by his father and raised by a single mom was an "elitist". But it's not enough, so we stack on the Muslim accusations and criticize his foreign sounding name (which, in my opinion, is not as weird as "Millard Fillmore") just to drive the point home. It's disgusting that we use such tactics in what is supposed to be a democracy, where problems are solved by our collective wisdom and not by beating the opposition into submission.

But perhaps most indicative of all, this article is also written from the approach of automatically assuming Obama to be a liar. He says his father was an atheist, but you assume he's lying. He finds Christ and goes to church (and what a church...) for years, but you call it "politically self-serving? ''Have we, as a nation, become so cynical and skeptical than we doubt one's conversion to Christ?''

Now, one of two things will happen. One, you'll read what I wrote and maybe take some - not all - into consideration. You'll tone it down a bit and focus on substantiative criticism (since I hardly expect, and would be disappointed by, a full rewrite into a bright shiny happy piece about him) of Obama, such as his opposition to Petraeus' plans that are clearly working or his refusal to tap America's natural resources to relieve our pain at the pump. Or two, you'll see the five paragraphs I've written and ignore it as too long and do nothing, and the article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations, and if I'm not banned I'll still probably leave in disgust. I hope that we, as Americans, can come together to fix the more egregious errors and better our democracy through substantiative debate about the issues that we all hold so dear going into this critical election. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well that article doesn't go so far as to mention his last name is similar to Osama. Hussein in his middle name is Saddam Hussein's last name. And Barack rhyms with Iraq. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 17:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's not so much the attacks as the nit picking nature of them- we've got calling a senior lectureship a professorship, saying 57 instead of 47, the fact that his uncle helped liberate a different concentration camp, the fact that he has no executive or military experience (I've been wondering about the executive part- is that refering to presidential experience?)... it all just seems a bit overplayed. [[WillD]]
::I agree, nitpicking is a good way to look at it. The article has missed the forest for the trees and, to further our usage of cliches, is missing the broad strokes. Although the executive experience part I believe refers to never holding a position similar to President but on a lower level; i.e., he's never been a governor, a mayor, or any other such position.--[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::: ''"article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations"'' Hmmm, if there wasn't references, you might have had a valid point.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: It's the usage of sources and the presentation of them that is problematic. This article, instead of finding sources and writing an article based off of them, is making claims and then adding "sources" that loosely connect them. An example is the Kenyan father thing; he says his father was a Muslim-turned-atheist, but the article indicates that because less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, it's impossible. You don't see the problem with that? Even ignoring that Obama himself says his father was an atheist (and who, despite being abandoned by him, knew him far better than any of us), it isn't possible Obama Sr. is one of those less than 1% of Kenyans?
:::: And if that isn't enough, here's an interview by British newspaper The Guardian with [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/barackobama.uselections2008 one of Obama Sr.'s daughters by another mother], who says "His [Barack's] father was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name." That would be a proper source, if it weren't for the fact that it completely contradicts what's written. The Muslim insinuations should be removed. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:46, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: The entry is factual. Obama's self-serving claim that his father was an atheist has all the plausibility of anything else that occurs less than 1% of the time. That Obama asserts that this was true before Obama could have possibly known (e.g., before Obama was born) only adds to implausibility of it.

::::: By the way, your quote (also self-serving) by Obama's relative does not indicate that Obama Sr. was an atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

She doesn't say he was an atheist, but she does say he was not a Muslim. And I doubt that a woman who apparently has never left Kenya would have much to gain by lying about her father's religious beliefs. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 18:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: But you missed the point, perhaps intentionally: Obama claimed Obama Sr. was an atheist, a claim having an obvious effect of appeasing both atheists and Christians. Too bad that it is so implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== President experience ==

Abraham Lincoln had 2 years in the house and 8 years in the state legislature. JFK was 8 years in the senate and 6 years in the house. Madison was 8 years in the house and 4 years in state legislature. Hoover was 7.5 years in the cabinet - was never in the state legislature, governor, house, or senate. Harrison was 6 years in the senate. http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html goes into the various experience of various presidents. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==James Dobson on Obama==
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, points out that Obama distorts the Holy Bible for his own political ends [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama]--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 22:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::James Dobson was apparently not listening closely to his speech. Obama's point was that policy should be made by people who don't automatically use Christian principles alone to make decisions. The reasons for policy decisions should be made accessible by people of all affiliations, not just Judeo-Christian ones. Dobson is just angry because his name was mentioned in a speech by a liberal candidate. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Is it me or do liberals always need others to explain what they have said?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Islamic holidays==
"However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. ". What are we suggesting he should have done, in a country where the schools close for Islamic holidays? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

For today, he should enlighten us all to his past. He refuses to give us much detail. When you are running for the highest office in the land, nothing can be hidden. Did he go home and watch TV during his days off? Maybe he celebrated the Holidays by attending a Mosque. What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining. He grew up in a predominate Muslim country. He left a Christian school after two years. The rest has yet to be explained.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because you don't know something you think it has to be explained? Would you like to describe for us what you did on every holiday you took off school? Maybe you spent them attending meetings of the Communist party? "What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining." [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:What difference does it make what he did? You would think we'd be better off focusing on his foreign and energy policies than pondering what he did with his free time when he was 10. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I would focus on his foreign and energy policy, if he had one! The little he has accomplished, I disagree with completely.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Didn't want you to hurt yourself with actually, you know, looking, so here you go, Jpatt: [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Foreign Policy] and [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Energy Policy] --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: yawn, much talk but nothing of logic--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative Action?==
The line "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President" should be replaced with "If elected, Obama would be the first African-American Affirmative Action President." By Conservapedia's definition, many white male Presidents did benefit from their "race or gender", and qualify as Affirmative Action Presidents.

: I think the main problem is not the phrasing of the claim but rather the claim itself. Not only does it insinuate that Obama has done absolutely nothing noteworthy in his entire life, but it is also inherently racist. I'm a conservative and will be voting for John McCain, but I really don't think he'd approve of this either. This website seems to approach politics like it's some kind of all-out war in which you should do anything, from lie to slander to smear to win. That's just wrong. This article, this Obama article, is giving us conservatives a bad name. If Obama loses this election, it should be on his policies and ideas, not because someone told everyone he was a Muslim.

==Barack Obama Visits Wounded War Veterans==
Barack Obama makes a surprise visit to wounded war veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html], http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html ,AP Barack Visits Wounded Vets, June 28, 2008 </ref> The visit wasn't on his public schedule.

In the past, Obama criticized the Bush administration for veterans treatment returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since becoming a US Senator, it has taken Obama more than 1270 days or three and a half years to visit our countries finest wounder soldiers in Washington, D.C.
:I assume you specifically mean the ones at Walter Reed, since he's visited [http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html other] veterans in the past. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Place of birth==
Last week on talk radio (the Shaun Hannity program I think) they raised the issue of where Barack Obama was born. Apparently, his campaign cannot produce a birth certificate. If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:08, 29 June 2008 (EDT).
:Technically they produced an image of his [http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert birth certificate]. Sean Hannity and Right-Wing blogs question its authenticity. This feeds into the "He's a foreigner! Scary!" meme. If you don't think he's a citizen and isn't eligible to be President, telling CP probably won't do much. Instead, I'd suggest you contact the appropriate federal agency and tell them. Although, since elections are technically handled state-by-state, you will probably need to contact the Secretary of State for each state and file your complaint. Would you like help locating those agencies to check into your allegations? Of course, one should be mindful, as I wonder whether this type of accusation would be considered "libel".--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::He should be required to produce an authentic certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii. As for libel, that is simply a liberal scare tactic. Truth is a perfect defense against libel. After all, you don't see Richard Lenski trying to sue Andy Schlafly do you? That's because he knows that Andy's doubts about his research are true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:55, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Who should he be required to produce it to for verification? Again, if you think that he isn't constitutionally qualified, the onus falls on YOU to request that he provide verification. The requests should be sent to the Secretaries of State, as they are the ones who are in charge of elections in each state. So if you believe it so firmly, do something about it. Don't sit here and complain, go out and force it. Or are you going to just grumble about it and make accusations without following up? And as for Lenski suing Schlafly--I don't think CP's questions have done any "harm" to Lenski's reputation and the time of going through and filing a lawsuit for libel? You'd be up in arms claiming it was a waste of the court's time to hear that case. Seems if Lenski doesn't file a lawsuit you'll say it's because he knows he's wrong, and if he does file a lawsuit, you'll say it's a waste of time. So that example doesn't really hold any water, in my book. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::That's a good point. I'll add it to [[Lenski]]'s page. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well when you get a job with the government (Senator falls in this category) you have to give the US Government your birth certificate. If it was false something would have come up earlier. If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else.

::::: "If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else." I'm afraid you may be on the wrong site, my friend. We tell the truth here regardless of what other people may or may not accept.

::::: The standards for confirming legal status for a government employee are not, obviously, as high as the standards for ensuring compliance with the U.S. Constitution by a potential U.S. President.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::What evidence would be acceptable proof of his being born in the US? I'm fairly certain that I could find such evidence, if I knew what would be considered valid. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Here is a link to a story regarding the birth certificate story. Obama may be in trouble if the Republicans have the gumption to pursue this.[http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2008/06/birth-certificate-could-doom-obama.html]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 08:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: The US Government would know where Obama was born. I think they would've spoken out and say "hey wait a minute" at some point in the past year and a half he's been running this campaign.

::::World Net Daily and The National Review (both trusted Conservapedia sources) acknowledge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and consider it a non-issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66991

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=

Could some sysop please delete the word "alledged" from the birth information? I would do it myself (and do a productive edit) but the page is locked. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 14:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Why hasn't anyone made this change? It is absolutely clear that even trusted conservative sources don't think that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Continuing to suggest otherwise is just a infantile smeer. Isn't any sysop gutsy (or fair) enough to make the change? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Death Knell for Affirmative Action? ==

Interesting article related to the opinion that Obama is an affirmative action candidate. It says that, in actuality, Obama proves [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/28/affirmative-action-hurt-by-obamas-success/ there's no need for affirmative action]. "Barack Obama's political success might claim an unintended victim: affirmative action, a much-debated policy he supports.
Already weakened by several court rulings and state referendums, affirmative action now confronts a challenge to its very reason for existing. If Americans make a black person the leading contender
for president, as nationwide polls suggest, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== List of Obama VP's refusing to take the number 2 job==

* Ted Strickland (D) Governor of Ohio
* Jim Webb (D) Senator of Virginia
* Jack Reed (D) Senator of Rhode Island
* Claire McCaskill (D) Senator Missouri
* John Edwards (D) Frm. Senator N. Carolina

==Employment while a student==

Does two summer jobs in six years at university count as "working your way through"? Even liberal Newsweek calls this [http://www.newsweek.com/id/144336 a bit of a stretch]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

That section should be revised , it currently says that Obama 'apparently did not hold any jobs during college or law school'. Wouldn't something along the lines of 'however his campaign can only provide information of two jobs held during those years' be more accurate? [[User:tordenvaer|tordenvaer]] 16:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

==Double up==
Hi,
This page is locked so I cant fix it but the whole intro is repeated under the section Published Criticism? Can someone fix?
Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:39, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

==Flip-flopping==

Can we include a section that specifically talks about his changes in policy positions (AKA flip-flops). This will help to accurately portray him in terms of what he is willing to do to win an election.

== Allegedly?!?!?! ==
Is there any real reason to believe he wasn't born in Honolulu?[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 19:11, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

== Why can't I add link to his voting record? ==

See http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Why can't I edit this article and add his voting record information? What is controversial about this? I am reticent to say anything because of the 90-10 rule thing. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 14:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. Yesaliberal 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. Learn together 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
And the Obama article? --Jareddr 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. Learn together 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --Jareddr 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. Learn together 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:John_McCain"

==Fake image==
That image of Obama during the pledge is a terrible photoshop job. Look at the bottom of the flag. The last red stripe kind of bends into nowhere, not to mention that the people look way too small according to the distance. Someone please remove this cheap trick. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 11:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

File talk:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg

2008-08-05T15:23:25Z

Jedibob5:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-08-02T19:46:25Z

Jedibob5:

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Regarding deletion of bios of conservative people: If you can back up your biography with plenty of sources independent of the subject, then the "police" will approve. For more check out Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) notability guideline for people]. Notability trumps any ideology, liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, radical, you-name-it. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Wikipedia does not follow its own policies. If wikipedia was actually neutral, why would it delete the page for Al Gore III [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Al_Gore_III] while keeping the page for Mary Cheney [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney]? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Regarding Al Gore III: the article was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_(8th_nomination) deleted in February 2008] after Wikipedians decided that they just couldn't write a biography of him that met the "biographies of living persons" and "notability (people)" standards. If you actually read the Wikitruth archived version you provided, you'll probably find out that it's full of gossip and doesn't explain ''why'' he's relevant to the world beyond being given his 15 news headlines of fame due to minor injuries and run-ins with the law. Furthermore, WP's people notability page states that "notability is not inherited" - in other words just because a certain person meets WP's notability standard doesn't mean that his/her friends, relatives, or associates are as well. Among all the sources cited in that "article", the sources that focus on him are about his legal run-ins, and the less distressing sources have him not as the focus of the article.
:::::On the other hand regarding Mary Cheney: the article does assert that she is relevant to society, as she has worked for Coors (one of the most prominent beer breweries in America) and the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign, and her "marriage" has been a subject of much debate in the news media given VP Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage. She also wrote an autobiography that was published in 2006.
:::::Thus, WP deleted the Al Gore III article but kept the Mary Cheney article because Cheney is so much more noted and discussed in the media than AG3 has been. BTW, I'll go on WP later and expand on AG3 on the Al Gore article.--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:56, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that ''all'' other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that ''most'' scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Level of support for evolution] article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support Scientific support] section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/Archive_3#Newsweek_article article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive]. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: : REPLY TO ASCHLAFLY: Not sure why you describe what I presented as "gossip". The details concerning JBS member connections to AAPS come from AAPS publications. Is that "gossip"? The info I provided regarding comments made by top FBI officials originate in FBI internal memos---all of which I have in my possession. Is that "gossip"? You can certainly disagree with their judgments -- but why misrepresent and de-value the quality of the data as nothing more than "gossip"? {{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

::: You lack dates, sources or logic for your gossipy accusations. The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your larger point (i.e. unsavory people belong to all sorts of organizations) -- yes, that's true but you conveniently ignore the salient difference i.e. such individuals did not represent the official position of those organizations nor were they knowingly embraced by such organizations. In fact, if "Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc." were identified -- most organizations would expel them. BY CONTRAST, AAPS enthusiastically welcomed JBS members and even invited them to be speakers and exhibitors at AAPS functions!
:JBS itself doesn't deny that it's hired AAPS members. Examples include Nathaniel Adamson, Ray Clark, and Arthur Crino. [http://www.jbs.org/index.php/about/john-birch-society-national-council].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 22:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections'''

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not ''explicitly'' state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: "Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.

: The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:: If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: "Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.

::::So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend ''your side'' in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.

::::I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]], aka [[User:OneAgainstRepression|OneAgainstRepression]] 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

'''Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review'''

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=221432211 13:49, 24 June 2008]) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: This article is ''examples of bias'' in Wikipedia. I think you want the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Six times==
I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." However further down the ''same page'' I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Aschlafly==
Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Barak Obama==
I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Title of the article==
I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars" ==

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed here]. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=frT&q=%22nominal+dollars%22+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 here] and found that the only movie that shows up is ''Expelled''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#.22In_nominal_dollars.3F.22 My complaint] against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (''An Inconvenient Truth''), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that ''Expelled'' is newer than ''An Inconvenient Truth''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin here], which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design this]. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?==

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Kind of old. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece ==

Check it out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining here]. Also see the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quote_mining here]. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate" ==

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Block message on user page]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=223450235#Disruptive_editor_User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Admin noticeboard history]

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:That user was blocked for his provocatively anti-semitic edits, not his name. Perhaps he should have stuck to posting his right wing garbage over on the [[Stormfront]] forums. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::But that's not the reason given for blocking him. And I looked at his edits. I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It says in very clear letters: '''"This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that the account is only being used for vandalism."''' The fact that the name could be further construed as an anti-semitic sentiment, given the edit history of the vandal, was mentioned as an additional support for the user account being blocked. The discussion on the admin board is about his propensity for altering articles dealing with Christianity and Judaism to make digs at Jews and Judaism. And they're blatantly obvious. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue you said "I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic". Did you not see this one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=211498797]
or do you not think it is anti-semitic? A quick glance through his contributions show them almost all to be anti-semitic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ChristianityMeansFreedom&namespace=&year=&month=-1]--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

This is cleanly mislead, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament]. All I found is people got wrong ideas. I was thinking about adding to the list, but I'm not sure, yet. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? ==

TSIB. Step back a minute & think about what you are really objecting to in Wikipedia. What you perceive as bias is the exact opposite. Wikipedia explores all subjects and acknowledges diverse attitudes to them, without jumping to conclusions. It maintains a neutral point of view, since any additions have to be backed up with reliable evidence. You may choose to regard this as "liberal bias", but that is only because Wikipedia does not censor and interpret its subjects as Conservapedia does. Conservapedia does not even pretend to have a neutral point of view. It wears its bias on its sleeve and openly propogates intolerant viewpoints. And it's for this exact reason that Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, will never be regarded as a factual or "trustworthy" reference source by the wider community. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 20:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:Please read [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Everything you level as accusations is freely admitted and explained. And incidentally, Wikipedia is not regarded as a factual or trustworthy reference source by most educators and experts. Try to use it as a source on a term paper and you will more than likely get called on it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course wikipedia is not a "trustworthy" reference with regards to the scientific/academic community, and by no means is CP. Any website that is openly editable is inherently un-trustowrthy for academia. Wikipedia, however, is a trustworthy reference for the average user, the user who wants a good overview of the subject in question, the user that wants the facts with as little bias or spin as possible. Wikipedia never claims to be an academic resource (and no decent academic would ever consider it as such, even in highschool, wikipedia is never considerd a "citable" source) but rather a means to get the "gist" of a topic and a gateway to more reliable sources. Do not try and put words in the wikipedia mission statement. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== John Edwards ==
Wikipedia is getting hammered over its censorship of the “John Edwards love child” story [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal] [http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2052379/posts] [http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/]. This story has a gossipy feel and Conservapedia discourages gossip. However, several different outlets have reported it. I think it should be included as an example of wiki’s bias, but would like to know what other people think because of the gossipy nature of the story. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 21:33, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:An entry I made about John Edwards was deleted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=493702&oldid=493701]. This nature of this story is gossipy, but this page is primarily about bias in wikipedia. It’s worth mentioning that wikipedia allows gossipy stories with no credible sources about McCain because he is a Republican, but censors a similar credible story about Edwards because he is a Democrat. Is there a way the entry could be reworded so that it is acceptable? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 18:36, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: You're so right that Wikipedia promotes gossip about conservatives, but immediately deletes it about liberals. This does illustrate Wikipedia's liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:After the John Edwards hotel story became common knowledge, some wikipedia editors attempted to add it to his page. However, a wikipedia administrator deleted that information and locked the page to prevent the story from being included [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&diff=228426613&oldid=228425805]. Locking the pages of liberals when critical stories appear about them in the media is standard operating procedure at wikipedia. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 22:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::As of the time I'm writing this, Wikipedia's article on Edwards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228904206#2008_Presidential_campaign has]:
::"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.[59][60][61] Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."[62]"
::So now that the ''real'' non-tabloid media has gotten to that story, editors have accepted addition of this information as long as this isn't given undue weight. Whew, we just got saved from another stigma on this page! Now, I'd like to make it clear that me & most other WP editors frown upon tabloids (e.g. ''National Enquirer'', ''New York Post'', ''The Sun'') as sources. Regarding "gossip about conservatives": what suddenly came to my mind was that infamous ''[[New York Times]]'' article that accused [[John McCain]] of having an affair with Vicki Iseman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=228831017 WP's article on McCain] makes absolutely no mention of Iseman, but it ''is'' mentioned in WP's article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times&oldid=222054349#John_McCain-lobbyist_article_criticism "Criticism of The New York Times"].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Furthermore, Wikipedia tries hard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.nationalenquirer.com not to source] the ''NatEnq'' in articles. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreeing with this article==
I have to disagree with the statements made in this article, mainly because the people who are writing it have a strong conservative bias, (it seems to assume that all liberals are wrong and immoral, and that their opinions aren't valid) and that Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is not a single entity that creates, reviews, and edits articles, it is millions of people across the globe. With that kind of userbase, bias will be inevitable. It is up to others to notice and repair that bias, as long as they add a properly sourced opinion for the other side, and that they keep original opinions intact. You see, if YOU spot bias, YOU can fix it. For example, for #11, just go fix it! The biography is a valid source, since it is a book and had to be published which has far less margin for error than, let's say, a blog. So just edit the article to say that some claim he is racist, cite the source, leave the so-called "liberal" opinion so it isn't conservatively biased, and you're done! Bias eliminated. A bias is favoring an opinion, whether it be "right" or "wrong", and lack of bias is showing all opinions. Conservapedia has a strong conservative bias, and it should recognize that, and understand that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, and understand the opinions of liberals and why they hold them, even if they disagree. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 15:46, 2 August 2008 (EDT)