Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-18T16:42:23Z

JeffT: /* Factual accuracy */

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)}}

Lifelong Catholic. Hardcore conservative.
I will fight for factual accuracy even if it is unappreciated or gets me kicked out of here.

== Factual accuracy ==

Factual accuracy is good, and will be appreciated but making [[personal remarks]] will get you kicked out. Also, try to distinguish between [[Debate Topics|debating]] and working on articles. If you have an idea to improve an article, propose it in a humble way, rather than in an overbearing or offensive way. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

See also [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Young_mass_murderers&diff=754842&oldid=754820 this warning]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Ed, my remarks were utterly impersonal. '''Everyone''' should agree that '''anyone''' who intentionally misrepresents facts is being deceitful. And it is very difficult to distinguish between debating and working on articles because rigorous explanations are demanded for factual changes. If I came off as offensive, I apologize for that. It was not my intention. My intention was to improve the factual accuracy of the article. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:12, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Facts are as facts do, JeffT. Talk to 100 scientists and you will get 100 different responses, all slightly different than the others. Same with linguists and translations. We are a [[U.S.]], [[conservative]] and [[Christian]] project. Editors accepting our POV are welcome, those who do not, are not so much. If you wish the same type of fact-obscuring encyclopedia as [[Wikipedia]] your efforts might be better accepted there. If you come here with the idea you are here to "save us" from ourselves, your mission has already failed. I urge you to open your mind to the truth...it will set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:48, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::TK, if you could help me understand these problems, I would very much appreciate it. I really dont understand what is going on. The facts are: It is '''not''' a fact that Amy Bisbop murdered her brother. It is a fact that the article is about a particular type of murder. It is a fact that Amy Bishop is not young. Could you please help me? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 17:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::My IM contact information is listed at the top of my user page, Jeff. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::The liberal ''Boston Globe'' disagrees with you, Jeff:
::* The University of Alabama biology professor accused of opening fire and killing three colleagues at a faculty meeting Friday shot and killed her teenage brother more than two decades ago in Massachusetts, according to authorities. [http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/professor_accus.html]
::But you think the "authorities" are not to be trusted, we can always add ''according to authorities'' to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:45, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Hi Ed, you seem to be confused. No one is contesting that she killed her brother. As Mr. Schlafly pointed out, the article is about a specific type of [[murder]] and it is simply not fact that Bishop murdered her brother. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:51, 17 February 2010 (EST)
The Word of the Day is: • pedantic --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:26, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:The difference between murder and killing far exceeds pedantry, TK; they are not to be conflated. If you would like to discuss this, I would be glad to participate. Factual accuracy is worth the hassle. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:39, 17 February 2010 (EST)

::Oh, now I see. When you said it wasn't a fact that she murdered her brother, you weren't denying that she '''killed''' him. You meant that her act of fratricide was not ruled a [[murder]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:38, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Sorry for any ambiguity. What you said is correct, Mr. Poor, and as Mr. Schlafly and I agree, the article in question is about murder. We should all agree that none of us are in the position to call it a murder, therefore we cannot state as fact that Amy Bishop started her rampage while young. Thanks again for bearing with me. I know I've been somewhat of a burden here and I assure you that was not my intention. I merely wish to strive for factual accuracy on a resource that has grown to the point of not only representing, but reflecting on conservatives. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 18:40, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Since a shotgun has to be reloaded after each shot, to fire it three times and call that a "mistaken shooting", and therefore not murder, is silly in the extreme. The fact that she ran, pointed the gun at several other people, tried to steal a car to make a get-away, all adds up to murder. Conservatives don't need to touch an oven to know it is hot, JeffT. This isn't a court of law, nothing needs to be "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:Hi, TK. Semi-automatic shotguns have been produced since 1905. Since your claim that this was murder is not verifiable, it does not belong in an encyclopedia, but if you insist on making that speculation, I would follow Mr. Poor's suggestion: "[if] you think the authorities are not to be trusted, we can always add ''according to authorities'' to the article". Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:42, 18 February 2010 (EST)

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-17T23:40:09Z

JeffT: /* Factual accuracy */

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-17T21:39:16Z

JeffT:

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-17T20:56:52Z

JeffT: to clear up confusion

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-17T20:51:44Z

JeffT: /* Factual accuracy */

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-16T22:07:02Z

JeffT:

Lifelong Catholic. Hardcore conservative.
I will fight for factual accuracy even if it is unappreciated or gets me kicked out of here.

Factual accuracy is good, and will be appreciated but making [[personal remarks]] will get you kicked out. Also, try to distinguish between [[Debate Topics|debating]] and working on articles. If you have an idea to improve an article, propose it in a humble way, rather than in an overbearing or offensive way. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

See also [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Young_mass_murderers&diff=754842&oldid=754820 this warning]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Ed, my remarks were utterly impersonal. '''Everyone''' should agree that '''anyone''' who intentionally misrepresents facts is being deceitful. And it is very difficult to distinguish between debating and working on articles because rigorous explanations are demanded for factual changes. If I came off as offensive, I apologize for that. It was not my intention. My intention was to improve the factual accuracy of the article. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:12, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Facts are as facts do, JeffT. Talk to 100 scientists and you will get 100 different responses, all slightly different than the others. Same with linguists and translations. We are a [[U.S.]], [[conservative]] and [[Christian]] project. Editors accepting our POV are welcome, those who do not, are not so much. If you wish the same type of fact-obscuring encyclopedia as [[Wikipedia]] your efforts might be better accepted there. If you come here with the idea you are here to "save us" from ourselves, your mission has already failed. I urge you to open your mind to the truth...it will set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:48, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::TK, if you could help me understand these problems, I would very much appreciate it. I really dont understand what is going on. The facts are: It is '''not''' a fact that Amy Bisbop murdered her brother. It is a fact that the article is about a particular type of murder. It is a fact that Amy Bishop is not young. Could you please help me? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 17:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T21:48:56Z

JeffT: /* Page move */ thanks a lot, spell check!

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also went to public school and committed mass murder in his thirties (unlike Bishop who was in her fifties). I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Jeff, if you feel there is evidence that young mass murderers in the US have been influenced by public schools, why not add that to the article? We can decide later on a page move, which is just an administrative function. Editorial integrity comes first, don't you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:I completely agree, Ed. Unfortunately, after making changes after Andy and I agreed that we could not rule Seth Bishop's killing a murder and that the article was about a particular type of murder (not killing), the article was locked. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T21:47:33Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also went to public school and committed mass murder in his thirties (unlike Bishop who was in her fifties). I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Jeff, if you feel there is evidence that young mass murderers in the US have been influenced by public schools, why not add that to the article? We can decide later on a page move, which is just an administrative function. Editorial integrity comes first, don't you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:I completely agree, Ed. Unfortunately, after making changes after Andy and I agreed that we could not rule Service Bishop's killing a murder and that the article was about a particular type of murder (not killing), the article was locked. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T21:29:36Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T21:27:22Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also we t to public school who committed mass murder in his thirties (unlike Bishop who was in her fifties). I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T21:22:47Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also we t to public school. I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-16T21:12:06Z

JeffT:

Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T20:28:26Z

JeffT: this entry focuses on a particular type of murder. we are in no position to rule this killing murder. this improves factual accuracy.

Recent increases in tragic mass-murders perpetrated by young individuals have prompted questions about their rationale for doing so. Below is collected evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly [[atheism|atheistic]] or driven by hatred of God.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Murdered
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2010
|Amy Bishop
|[[professor values|professor]], and daughter of a professor
|3
|3, was also a suspect in attempted murder in 1993
|"was a far-left political extremist"<ref>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100215oddball_protrait_emerges_suspects_family_pals_offer_clues/srvc=home&position=0</ref>
|liberals liked her: she "was admired by her peers and loved by her students" and "was a super intelligent person."<ref>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100214everybody_described_her_as_gentle/</ref>
|-
|2009
|Tim Kretschmer
|[[Germany]] [[public school]]
|15 + himself<ref>Reports were that the police did not mortally wound him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161139/Are-dead-Police-gun-ex-student-17-targeted-women-German-school-massacre.html</ref>
|several others
|wore all black, indicative of anti-Christianity
|denial of significance of all-black clothing by a teenager; Europe calls for more [[gun control]]; [[liberal]] media promotes falsehood: "We'll never know why they kill."[http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/greene.shootings/]
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Feigned shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a [[God]] or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was [[Satan|satanic]] and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoided suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "[[Jesus]] was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>Virginia Tech, ''Transcript of Nikki Giovanni's Convocation address'', Delivered April 17, 2007[http://www.vt.edu/remember/archive/giovanni_transcript.html] ''We are Virginia Tech./We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning./We are Virginia Tech./We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again./We are Virginia Tech./We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy./We are Virginia Tech./The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness./We are the Hokies./We will prevail./We will prevail./We will prevail./We are Virginia Tech.''</ref><ref>[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|2007
|Asa Coon
|SuccessTech public school Academy (Cleveland)
|Himself
|4
|Said he didn't believe in [[God]] and didn't respect [[God]], killed after classmate disagreed; wore black<ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192092117230670.xml&coll=2]</ref>
|Under-publicized because of his anti-[[God]] statements
|-
|2006
|[[Kimveer Gill]]
|Rosemere High School (Quebec)
|1 + himself
|20
|"I hate [[God]]" and "I hate religious zealots"
|[[Canada]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out a victim who believed in [[God]].
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[Arkansas]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|5
|10
|Mitchell Johnson, the older of the two, was obsessed with rap lyrics like "coming to school and killing all the kids."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/16/entertainment/main11983.shtml</ref>
|Liberals blame the guns rather than the killer's obsession with rap music. Johnson is released at age 21 but is later arrested for new crimes.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal
||Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|14 + himself
|14<ref>Montreal Coroners Report of the École Polytechnique de Montréal massacre [http://www.diarmani.com/Montreal_Coroners_Report.pdf]</ref>
|His religious views were unpublicized but he was raised in a home with an immigrant Muslim father who was allegedly highly critical of the [[feminist]] view of women's role in society; Marc's mother was an ex-nun; and his sister had allegedly committed suicide<ref>http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml</ref>
His suicide note reflected anger towards feminists: ''"For I have decided to send Ad Patres the feminists who have ruined my life...the feminists always have a talent for enraging me...They want to retain the advantages of being women...while trying to grab those of the men...They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can."''<ref>CityNews Rewind: The Montreal Massacre, December 6, 2006 [http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5897.aspx]</ref>
|Ignore the personal background of the killer and instead use the massacre to push for stricter [[gun control]] and more laws concerning violence against women, and establish in [[Canada]] a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
|-
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T20:21:47Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T18:36:16Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T18:01:13Z

JeffT: /* Page move */ trying to avoid confusion

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T17:58:05Z

JeffT: /* Page move */ last reply.

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule it a murder? Do you deny that is Bishop not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Conservative logic

2010-02-16T16:51:52Z

JeffT: rmv liberal vandalism. someone please escort jhampton off the site.

'''Conservative logic''' is largely a redundant term; [[logic]] leads one to a conservative, measured response, rather than the illogical embrace of change for the sake of change.

Examples of logic leading to conservative values:

1. No civilization has ever been demonstrated to be successful or stable without [[faith]]. Therefore, claims that [[atheism]] are beneficial to society are illogical and lack evidence. Furthermore, examples of the ways in which faith is beneficial to society are easily found. Thus, it is logical to conclude that faith is beneficial and vital to a stable society.

2. Traditional family values encapsulate a great many eminently logical concepts, including [[division of labor]] and specialization. Numerous studies have shown that full-time parenting is of substantial benefit. Furthermore, a cursory examination of the data available will show a strong correlation between the increase in two-income families and the increase in reported psychological problems among children. Conservatives logically recognize the great value of the role played by a stay-at-home mother; liberals dismiss the importance, and thus belittle those who choose to accept this critical responsibility.

3. Conservatives recognize that freedom comes at a price, and that that price is not always pleasant. Liberals employ those same freedoms to criticize others for paying the necessary price.

4. Conservatives reject "solutions" that won't actually solve anything and are designed largely to assuage guilt. For example, conservatives oppose emissions standards if those standards are going to be ignored by other major industrial powers, recognizing that such standards would only serve to put American manufacturers at a disadvantage.

5. Conservatives recognize that massive, centralized government is illogical, as it leads to inefficient "One size fits all" solutions that fail to take local conditions into account.

6. Conservatives comprehend the fundamental logic of the [[Bible]] as a unified, coherent work, rather than frantically quoting individual, out-of-context passages in an attempt to disprove its validity.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Conservatism]]

Liberal tricks

2010-02-16T16:38:19Z

JeffT: Undo revision 754823 by JHampton (Talk)

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

#try to draw a conservative in to saying or doing something which can then be dishonestly twisted to cast him in a bad light.
# So as not to show his true beliefs of supporting evil infanticide and taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], [[Barack Obama]] insists he is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/16/obama-and-mccain-try-to-woo-conservative-voters-at-forum/ Obama, McCain’s Abortion Positions Contrast Sharply at Faith Forum] Fox News, August 16, 2008 </ref>
# Inserting a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?!"
# Distracting and disrupting reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# Making arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# Pretending that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# Exaggerating praise for fellow liberals.<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref>
# Pretending that atheism equals intelligence.
# In court decisions, holding in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[Liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriending]] you so that you become liberal. (Conversely, why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# Citing "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# Citing "it doesn't hurt to try!" (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as premarital sex, worshiping other gods/many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# Smearing your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# Calling someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' that happens to have a different skin color
# Demonizing [[conservative]]s and pretending they don't care about regular people
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').
# Believing the poor are blameless because they have nothing and the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# Accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# In discounting other point of views, [[liberals]] use comparisons of other known "wrong actions" to justify their supposed correct stance. <ref>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/07/hanson-earth-at-crisis-point/ , AFP Hansen, Earth At A Crisis Point, April 7, 2008</ref>
# Inserting false information, usually lewd into a respected work or group of works.
# Defending the assuration that democrats.com is not affiliated with the [[Democratic]] party. (We are told as an independent website, Democrats do not control the views of democrats.com.)
# Claiming expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty<ref>Liberals often cited physicists who had no training or expertise in engineering for their baseless, illogical criticisms of [[SDI]].</ref>
# Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor"
# Pretending [[affirmative action]] is the best way to fill positions, including [[Affirmative action president|President of the U.S.]]
# Fearing the wrath of voters this election cycle, Democrats have decided not to block offshore drilling bans renewed each October. After the election, [[Americans]] get sucker-punched because restoring the ban on new offshore [[oil drilling]] leases “will be a top priority for discussion next year.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36268 Democrat Leader: Restoring Offshore Drilling Ban a ‘Top Priority’ for Next Year] CNSNews, September 24, 2008</ref>
# Saying "If you believe that abortion is murder, don't have one!" as if abortion isn't undisputably the murder of a human being.
(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #17 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

User talk:JeffT

2010-02-16T16:34:12Z

JeffT:

Lifelong Catholic. Hardcore conservative.
I will fight for factual accuracy even if it is unappreciated or gets me kicked out of here.

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T16:28:59Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T16:23:47Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T16:22:18Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of that murder and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T16:19:24Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when her brother was killed. Bishop has not been convicted of that murder and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T15:24:02Z

JeffT: /* Page move */ another suggestion for trying to improve accuracy

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T15:22:07Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T15:21:23Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve hhe accuracy of Conservapedia. Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T14:47:10Z

JeffT: /* Page move */

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-16T14:44:33Z

JeffT: page move suggestion

User talk:JeffT

2010-01-29T13:59:20Z

JeffT: Created page with 'Lifelong Catholic. Hardcore conservative.'

Lifelong Catholic. Hardcore conservative.

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T17:22:22Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

I am a bit concerned by how often I am seeing the term "God" arbitrarily replaced with "the Lord." (For example, "Kingdom of God" changed to "Truth of the Lord.") The two terms are not synonymous, and I feel the difference between θεος and κυριος should be retained. Also, in the Gospel of Luke, and elsewhere on the site, "Truth" used as a translation of several different words: Kingdom, Word, gospel. This is a big problem. You can't simply replace every complex term with "truth."
:The distinction between 'Lord' and 'God', the substitution of 'Truth' for 'Word' is a matter for [[Bible Translation Issues]]. Specific problems with Luke 9-16 can be discussed here. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 10:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation of ευαγγελιον ==

Luke 9:6- I don't know if "spreading the Truth" is a very good translation here. Wouldn't a better translation of the Greek ευαγγελιζομενοι (euangelizomenoi) be "proclaiming the good news"? Or the more traditional "preaching the gospel"? I think it may be a bad idea to downplay the term "gospel" too much. After all, most conservatives should be pretty familiar with the term "gospel."
--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 15:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)Cory Howell

:Over at the Gospel of Mark, the decision was made to translate ευαγγελιον as "good news." It seems to me that the same convention should be followed here in Luke. Therefore, "spreading the Truth" in Luke 9:6 should be rendered either "proclaiming the good news" or "spreading the good news." "Proclaiming" would be more literal, and "spreading" would be a little more figurative, but would more clearly present the idea of the gospel spreading across the countryside.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the update, I think 'spreading' will be better. Is it a new Project Guideline to translate ευαγγελιον as 'good news'? [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 11:56, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Over at Mark, it looks like they are consistently using "good news," and TerryH told me in an e-mail that it was supposed to be "good news." That's all the info I have currently.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::::However, I glanced through Matthew, and it looks like the word gospel is currently still there. Perhaps we need some clarification on this issue.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

== Editing and creating quotations ==
Is it a good idea to edit existing quotes, or to create quotes where the existing work had none? The accuracy and authenticity of existing quotes may be questionable, but altered or fabricated quotes are guaranteed to be inaccurate.--[[User:jason217|Jason Samantha]] 20:54, 02 November 2009 (EDT)

== The Lord's Prayer ==

I'm looking to restrict my changes to cleanup of spelling and grammar, but I have to raise a concern that troubles me. Can the text of the Lord's Prayer in 11:1-4 be left intact instead of trying to revise it into a more contemporary form? I'm a Catholic, and was taught the Lord's Prayer as a child using the form shown here in the KJV. Even though the text of the KJV is a translation itself, it has been accepted by English-speaking Christians for hundreds of years. I just don't see a need to "fix" what isn't broken in the Bible, especially when it's supposed to be a direct instruction from Jesus. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

: Chris, you express a reasonable view, but honestly I can't say I agree. The English language changes over time. Not everyone can understand Shakespeare today, and this disconnect gets worse every new day. Precision is lost also. Who talks about others being "indebted" to us now? It's imprecise in 2009 English. On the positive side, powerful new words and concepts are constantly being discovered that were not available in 1611. Why ride in horse-and-buggy when Corvettes are available?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 8 January 2010 (EST)

::I can certainly understand your viewpoint, and agree with it in general. As I mentioned above, I learned the Lord's prayer as a child, and it took some time before I understood what "hallowed" meant. The translated text is not worse, although "holy is your name" seems to sound better than "your name is holy". My feeling is taht judgment can be used selectively to determine which parts of a Bible translation should be brought up to date (most, so it's understandable), and which should be left intact out of respect for tradition and the beauty of KJV-style prose that is lost in modern English (a small but important amount).
::I appreciate you letting me express my thoughts. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:08, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:::Chris, I understand your viewpoint and agree that the [[KJV]] rendition is majestic. There is certainly a time and a place for that, and perhaps for some people it is for every time and every place. But the market is speaking loudly and clearly: the KJV loses market share every day. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that trend is not likely to change. It's all well and good for older folks to cling to the translation of their youth, but that's not helping younger folks or people who are hearing it for the first time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks for the responses. I consider the question addressed, and will return to copy editing. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 21:24, 10 January 2010 (EST)

== Question about 15:13 ==

Could the wording of this translation be changed from "where he wasted his life with women and booze." to "where he wasted his life through sinful behavior."? That seems closer to describing the meaning of "riotous living" in this passage. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:15, 13 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:33-34 ==

By stating ''The mind is the window to the body. '' in Luke 11:34a, the connection to Luke 11:33 is lost, as neither ''window'' nor ''mind'' is mentioned in the previous verse.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:26, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:This is an interesting pair of verses to discuss, but I have a different reason than FrankC for thinking that the CBP translation needs to be revised. Matthew 6:22-24 relates the same lesson from Jesus, and in both the Luke and Matthew gospels the original intent seems to be an emphasis on having a single-minded devotion to God and living one's life by God's rules. When you lose that single-minded focus on a God-centered life, you are in effect allowing temptation to work on you. Both gospels discuss this in black-and-white terms; you are either focused on God, or you are darkened by evil. This may seem extreme, but Jesus had a tendency to use simple, clear examples in his lessons that didn't much leave room for watering his messages down. 
:Some references to this interpretation can be found [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.lviii.html here], [http://www.biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Eye.htm here] and [http://bible.cc/matthew/6-22.htm here].
:If others here agree with this interpretation, then the current translation of Luke 11:34 is actually taking the message away from the original intent. It's good to be open-minded about many things, but not where God is concerned ("Keep your eyes on the prize"). The conservative value of open-mindedness should be emphasized in more appropriate place, but not here. My suggested CBP translation for this passage would be this:
::''The window to God's light is the eye. When your eye is focused on God, your body is filled with his light; but when your eye is distracted or turned away then your body is left in darkness.''
:I'll leave the final decision to the senior editors here - this is only a recommendation. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:25, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:43 ==

Pretty minor point. I respectfully disagree with the choice of "reckoning to you" for οὐαὶ ὑμῖν. ''Ouai'' is an extremely common interjection in Greek usually translated as "woe" or "alas" along with its object. In this case the object is the plural dative pronoun of su, which means "you all." The combination of ''ouai su'' is so commonly used in the Bible that it's idiomatic. The idiom corresponds to those we're famliar with in English: "woe to you," "woe unto you," or "alas for you." So this is an example of where I think the KJV correctly translates the idiom and is perhaps the reason it is familiar to us as English speakers so many hundreds of years later. My only point here is that since I've never heard someone say "reckoning to you" and to the extent a familiar English idiom directly corresponds to the meaning of a Greek idiom I don't think it should not be discarded. Idioms like this have the ability to powerfully and effectively convey their meaning. I also think "reckoning is textually incorrect because the Gospel writers had word for "reckoning" or "judgment," depending on the context you intended. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 13:53, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:You make good points. Thank you. I have an open mind about this, and think "reckoning" might be improved. But "woe to you" or "alas to you"? Those strike me as very archaic and ambiguous. Is it a curse? No, I don't think that is the original intent. People just don't talk that way anymore, and a listener to those phrases does not understand the original intent. Also, as to "you all," that's too colloquial for a Bible translation, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Schlafly. I also don't think it's a curse, but "reckoning" does refer to a judgment or curse. ''Ouai'' is an interjection, literally "woe!" as in "woe is me" or "woe unto you" or "alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well." I guess we just see the power of the idiom differently. I can't think of anything powerful that retains the meaning of ''ouai'' that I'm familiar with but I am trying and my mind is open to capturing a more contemporary meaning of "woe." One suggestion I would make is that the sense of ''ouai'' doesn't seem judgmental, as "reckoning" would imply that there will be a reckoning upon you (and there's no indication that the interjection is present progressive or gerundial), but purely interjectory along the lines of "poor you." As for the "you all," say no more. That was a carry-over from my internal dialog about plural pronouns like ὑμῖν when I read them because English has no plural form of "you" like Greek or Romance languages do. Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting "woe to you all" is appropriate. :-) Sorry about being unclear. By the way, the only reason I think this matters is that ''ouai'' or something similar might appear 50 or more times in the New Testament and its use is consistently translated as "woe" or "alas" from the Greek in the KJV. Catholics might find the similar Douay rendering of ''vae vobis''' as "woe unto you" familiar. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 15:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::I don't see any merit to "alas" in this context. "Alas to you who take the highest seats at the synagogue"??? A new listener of that is left dumbfounded and confused. What's the point of it? I'm not even sure myself with that rendering.

:::"Woe" seems better, but still archaic.

:::The broader point is this: we're not trying to translate the Bible so it sounds familiar to people who have already memorized, or frequently recite, an old translation. We're trying to translate the Bible so it renders the original intent as precisely as possible to ''any'' modern listener, and particularly a new one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::How about a slight modification to Andy's version: replace "Reckoning to you, Pharisees!" with "Your reckoning is coming, Pharisees!". This would also work well in the preceding passage (42). --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 17:15, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Great suggestion! Please make that improvement in verse 43. I'm not sure using the exact same translation in 42 is helpful, but am open-minded about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'll put it into both now, and you can decide if you want to revise 42 after you see it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 18:16, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:46 ==

Since there's a comment about whether this verse needs further work I'll add my 2 cents. The way I read the original, the simplest interpretation is that the lawyers are being chastised for adding burdens to others while doing nothing to help with them. Assuming that these burdens are equatable to regulations ''"and transactions costs"'' may be reading too much into it as a translation. I'd suggest keeping the essence of Andy's translation, but streamlining it like this: 
:''He replied, "You lawyers will be accountable too! For you impose burdensome regulations on others, but will not lift a finger to help those who struggle with them.''
This also restores Jesus' reference to lifting a finger from the original text. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:01, 19 January 2010 (EST)

: Your suggestion is superb, Chris. You're excellent at this. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks. I've applied the change. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:05, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:47-48 ==

Regarding 11:47, why change the translation of "Woe unto you!" to say "Pity you!!", when the same phrase is translated to "Your reckoning is coming!" a few verses prior? 
Regarding 11:48, the translation is leaving out a key point of Jesus' message, that those He is addressing ''allowed'' the deeds of their fathers, not just witnessed them. That's too important a distinction to be left out in the revised version. I'd suggest the following:
:''By that you testify to sanctioning the deeds of your fathers, because they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs."''
--[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:09, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::To your first point, I don't think the same Greek word or phrase should necessarily be translated repetitively and identically in English. Modern English disfavors repetition, and the Greek was not as powerful in some ways as terms now available. The meaning changes from context to context, and the original intent of the Greek was probably not identical in the different contexts.

::Your second point is terrific, but I wonder if we can improve it further. How about:

:::''With that you endorse the deeds of your fathers, as they killed the prophets and you build their tombs."''

::Perhaps even more refinement can improve this. Suggestions welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::I've left the first item intact, and replaced the second with your revision, which I agree is a further improvement. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:06, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks again for your superb contributions, from which I (and others) have learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:08, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 ==

Since the question is being asked, I'd suggest replacing "politically incorrect" with "controversial", or even better, "heretical". Since it was a group of Pharisees looking to trap and accuse Jesus, the original meaning is most likely that they were tying to catch him in heresy, which was their domain. Quoting Jesus as saying something politically incorrect for that period would only allow Him to be embarrassed at most - these men want to have Jesus eliminated since they saw him as a threat to their authority. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:11, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:I don't think the Pharisees had an atheistic separation between church and state. Heresey would have been considered politically incorrect. The Pharisees ''hated'' Christ. They would have jumped on anything, not just heresey. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:23, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::Right, and the Pharisees did try to catch Jesus in criticism of Caesar, not only heresy. Recall the question about whether one should pay taxes to Caesar. It would have been "politically incorrect" -- and deadly -- for Jesus to answer as the Pharisees hoped.

::But I have an open mind about this and agree that further discussion is warranted. Note that because "politically incorrect" is one of the [[Best New Conservative Words]], it won't appear in any Greek-to-English lexicon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::The reason I suggested "heresy" is that it fits the intent of these Pharisees better. In Mark 14:61-64 that is the accusation that is used to condemn Jesus to death, and it improves the consistency of this translation to support that intent by the Pharisees. The point about the attempt to trick Jesus over paying taxes to Caeser is a good one, but even that was essentially a trap based on a religious question, not one about government policy. The final point is that while we criticize people today for saying and doing politically incorrect things, at worst these are social blunders with few legal consequences. The Pharisees were trying to eliminate a threat, and mere embarrassment was not going to be enough to stop a man performing actual miracles before the masses. It would take a serious criminal or heretical act to discredit Jesus, not a social gaffe. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:10, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::Nothing can discredit conservative principles, but that doesn't stop liberals from trying over every perceived gaffe a conservative makes. I don't see the Pharisees as being any different, but I have an open mind and you have made good points. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Thanks. What you say about people maliciously using gaffes to discredit people is true. Where the Bible is concerned, I'm just trying to stay "on message" with this project's focus on supporting the original intent of these passages. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::::::We all welcome the best translation of the original intent, using the most powerful modern terms available. I agree that "politically incorrect" has a connotation of superficiality, but it can be very serious in consequences also. People can lose their careers and sometimes even their lives around the world with a single politically incorrect remark, and you can see liberals today try to provoke such a remark. Solzhenitsyn spent years in hard labor in Siberia, and people languish in Cuban jails to this day for politically incorrect statements or writings. Pharisees were playing a liberal game to trap Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::Those are excellent examples of people suffering the consequences of saying the wrong things while living in modern-era oppressive states where freedom of speech is not permitted. I suspect the that typical reader is not going to think of those cases when they see the phrase "politically incorrect" used in a Biblical context, though. The essential question is, given who the questioners were and the setting they lived in at the time, could they have entrapped Jesus in a way that would eliminate him as a threat by getting him to say politically incorrect things? That seems unlikely. 
:::::::Remember that Jesus was healing people, raising the dead and performing miracles, and that this as much as his lessons were the reason for his popularity at that time (the lessons would be his enduring legacy, but the miracles were essential back then to show doubters that he spoke through the authority of God). If a man walked among us today could cure blindness and disease with a touch and raise children from the dead, who wouldn't tolerate political incorrectness on his part as a price to pay? 
:::::::Since the miracles were witnessed by many, then the best way to discredit the miracle-worker, Jesus, would be to imply that the source of his power came not from God, but from the devil to lead men away from God. Catching him in something that could be spun as heresy would be a means to that end. This interpretation is straightforward, consistent with both the original scripture and the translated versions to date, and supports conservative efforts to stand up to people who try to trap men of faith into saying things that can be spun into an attack on that faith. Sorry to be so wordy, but I've taken this project to heart and care about doing my best by it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::It's my belief that the Pharisees, like liberals, are nit picking. If a man walked among us who could cure blindness by touch, intellectual elitists who cling so desperately to their theories would be dying for a reason to ostracize him. That's exactly what the elitist Pharisees were doing to Jesus. At least I think so. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:46, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::::Nitpicking would not have led to the fullfillment of scripture through Jesus' death. When you read one of these Gospels as a whole,a nd not just in part, you get the benefit of seeing the bigger picture and the patterns that start to emerge, just as you do with any great novel. In this section, Jesus was nothing but honest in calling the Pharisees out on their hypocrisy and style-over-substance, and now through his honesty he's made enemies of them. They are now motivated to not just embarrass or pick at his teachings - they see him as a danger to their (misguided) way of life, and see him as a threat to be eliminated. They choose to entrap him and get him to make a heretical statement, which would explain his ability to perform miracles while turning the people against him. With this the pattern is set that leads to His trial and crucifixion. Scripture isn't just a story, it's a tapestry, and trying to justify something that fits the context and intention like heresy being replaced by "political incorrectness" is like replacing silk with polyester - it still holds the tapestry together, but it doesn't really belong there. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::::Chris, you're using a lot of words but haven't addressed my simple point: how would modern day intellectual elitists treat someone who could perform miracles? And your analogy about replacing silk with polyester doesn't hold up. We're using powerful modern terms not available to the original authors which are an improvement, not replacing the original with cheap alternatives. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:15, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T17:15:18Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

I am a bit concerned by how often I am seeing the term "God" arbitrarily replaced with "the Lord." (For example, "Kingdom of God" changed to "Truth of the Lord.") The two terms are not synonymous, and I feel the difference between θεος and κυριος should be retained. Also, in the Gospel of Luke, and elsewhere on the site, "Truth" used as a translation of several different words: Kingdom, Word, gospel. This is a big problem. You can't simply replace every complex term with "truth."
:The distinction between 'Lord' and 'God', the substitution of 'Truth' for 'Word' is a matter for [[Bible Translation Issues]]. Specific problems with Luke 9-16 can be discussed here. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 10:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation of ευαγγελιον ==

Luke 9:6- I don't know if "spreading the Truth" is a very good translation here. Wouldn't a better translation of the Greek ευαγγελιζομενοι (euangelizomenoi) be "proclaiming the good news"? Or the more traditional "preaching the gospel"? I think it may be a bad idea to downplay the term "gospel" too much. After all, most conservatives should be pretty familiar with the term "gospel."
--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 15:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)Cory Howell

:Over at the Gospel of Mark, the decision was made to translate ευαγγελιον as "good news." It seems to me that the same convention should be followed here in Luke. Therefore, "spreading the Truth" in Luke 9:6 should be rendered either "proclaiming the good news" or "spreading the good news." "Proclaiming" would be more literal, and "spreading" would be a little more figurative, but would more clearly present the idea of the gospel spreading across the countryside.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the update, I think 'spreading' will be better. Is it a new Project Guideline to translate ευαγγελιον as 'good news'? [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 11:56, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Over at Mark, it looks like they are consistently using "good news," and TerryH told me in an e-mail that it was supposed to be "good news." That's all the info I have currently.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::::However, I glanced through Matthew, and it looks like the word gospel is currently still there. Perhaps we need some clarification on this issue.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

== Editing and creating quotations ==
Is it a good idea to edit existing quotes, or to create quotes where the existing work had none? The accuracy and authenticity of existing quotes may be questionable, but altered or fabricated quotes are guaranteed to be inaccurate.--[[User:jason217|Jason Samantha]] 20:54, 02 November 2009 (EDT)

== The Lord's Prayer ==

I'm looking to restrict my changes to cleanup of spelling and grammar, but I have to raise a concern that troubles me. Can the text of the Lord's Prayer in 11:1-4 be left intact instead of trying to revise it into a more contemporary form? I'm a Catholic, and was taught the Lord's Prayer as a child using the form shown here in the KJV. Even though the text of the KJV is a translation itself, it has been accepted by English-speaking Christians for hundreds of years. I just don't see a need to "fix" what isn't broken in the Bible, especially when it's supposed to be a direct instruction from Jesus. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

: Chris, you express a reasonable view, but honestly I can't say I agree. The English language changes over time. Not everyone can understand Shakespeare today, and this disconnect gets worse every new day. Precision is lost also. Who talks about others being "indebted" to us now? It's imprecise in 2009 English. On the positive side, powerful new words and concepts are constantly being discovered that were not available in 1611. Why ride in horse-and-buggy when Corvettes are available?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 8 January 2010 (EST)

::I can certainly understand your viewpoint, and agree with it in general. As I mentioned above, I learned the Lord's prayer as a child, and it took some time before I understood what "hallowed" meant. The translated text is not worse, although "holy is your name" seems to sound better than "your name is holy". My feeling is taht judgment can be used selectively to determine which parts of a Bible translation should be brought up to date (most, so it's understandable), and which should be left intact out of respect for tradition and the beauty of KJV-style prose that is lost in modern English (a small but important amount).
::I appreciate you letting me express my thoughts. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:08, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:::Chris, I understand your viewpoint and agree that the [[KJV]] rendition is majestic. There is certainly a time and a place for that, and perhaps for some people it is for every time and every place. But the market is speaking loudly and clearly: the KJV loses market share every day. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that trend is not likely to change. It's all well and good for older folks to cling to the translation of their youth, but that's not helping younger folks or people who are hearing it for the first time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks for the responses. I consider the question addressed, and will return to copy editing. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 21:24, 10 January 2010 (EST)

== Question about 15:13 ==

Could the wording of this translation be changed from "where he wasted his life with women and booze." to "where he wasted his life through sinful behavior."? That seems closer to describing the meaning of "riotous living" in this passage. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:15, 13 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:33-34 ==

By stating ''The mind is the window to the body. '' in Luke 11:34a, the connection to Luke 11:33 is lost, as neither ''window'' nor ''mind'' is mentioned in the previous verse.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:26, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:This is an interesting pair of verses to discuss, but I have a different reason than FrankC for thinking that the CBP translation needs to be revised. Matthew 6:22-24 relates the same lesson from Jesus, and in both the Luke and Matthew gospels the original intent seems to be an emphasis on having a single-minded devotion to God and living one's life by God's rules. When you lose that single-minded focus on a God-centered life, you are in effect allowing temptation to work on you. Both gospels discuss this in black-and-white terms; you are either focused on God, or you are darkened by evil. This may seem extreme, but Jesus had a tendency to use simple, clear examples in his lessons that didn't much leave room for watering his messages down. 
:Some references to this interpretation can be found [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.lviii.html here], [http://www.biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Eye.htm here] and [http://bible.cc/matthew/6-22.htm here].
:If others here agree with this interpretation, then the current translation of Luke 11:34 is actually taking the message away from the original intent. It's good to be open-minded about many things, but not where God is concerned ("Keep your eyes on the prize"). The conservative value of open-mindedness should be emphasized in more appropriate place, but not here. My suggested CBP translation for this passage would be this:
::''The window to God's light is the eye. When your eye is focused on God, your body is filled with his light; but when your eye is distracted or turned away then your body is left in darkness.''
:I'll leave the final decision to the senior editors here - this is only a recommendation. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:25, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:43 ==

Pretty minor point. I respectfully disagree with the choice of "reckoning to you" for οὐαὶ ὑμῖν. ''Ouai'' is an extremely common interjection in Greek usually translated as "woe" or "alas" along with its object. In this case the object is the plural dative pronoun of su, which means "you all." The combination of ''ouai su'' is so commonly used in the Bible that it's idiomatic. The idiom corresponds to those we're famliar with in English: "woe to you," "woe unto you," or "alas for you." So this is an example of where I think the KJV correctly translates the idiom and is perhaps the reason it is familiar to us as English speakers so many hundreds of years later. My only point here is that since I've never heard someone say "reckoning to you" and to the extent a familiar English idiom directly corresponds to the meaning of a Greek idiom I don't think it should not be discarded. Idioms like this have the ability to powerfully and effectively convey their meaning. I also think "reckoning is textually incorrect because the Gospel writers had word for "reckoning" or "judgment," depending on the context you intended. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 13:53, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:You make good points. Thank you. I have an open mind about this, and think "reckoning" might be improved. But "woe to you" or "alas to you"? Those strike me as very archaic and ambiguous. Is it a curse? No, I don't think that is the original intent. People just don't talk that way anymore, and a listener to those phrases does not understand the original intent. Also, as to "you all," that's too colloquial for a Bible translation, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Schlafly. I also don't think it's a curse, but "reckoning" does refer to a judgment or curse. ''Ouai'' is an interjection, literally "woe!" as in "woe is me" or "woe unto you" or "alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well." I guess we just see the power of the idiom differently. I can't think of anything powerful that retains the meaning of ''ouai'' that I'm familiar with but I am trying and my mind is open to capturing a more contemporary meaning of "woe." One suggestion I would make is that the sense of ''ouai'' doesn't seem judgmental, as "reckoning" would imply that there will be a reckoning upon you (and there's no indication that the interjection is present progressive or gerundial), but purely interjectory along the lines of "poor you." As for the "you all," say no more. That was a carry-over from my internal dialog about plural pronouns like ὑμῖν when I read them because English has no plural form of "you" like Greek or Romance languages do. Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting "woe to you all" is appropriate. :-) Sorry about being unclear. By the way, the only reason I think this matters is that ''ouai'' or something similar might appear 50 or more times in the New Testament and its use is consistently translated as "woe" or "alas" from the Greek in the KJV. Catholics might find the similar Douay rendering of ''vae vobis''' as "woe unto you" familiar. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 15:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::I don't see any merit to "alas" in this context. "Alas to you who take the highest seats at the synagogue"??? A new listener of that is left dumbfounded and confused. What's the point of it? I'm not even sure myself with that rendering.

:::"Woe" seems better, but still archaic.

:::The broader point is this: we're not trying to translate the Bible so it sounds familiar to people who have already memorized, or frequently recite, an old translation. We're trying to translate the Bible so it renders the original intent as precisely as possible to ''any'' modern listener, and particularly a new one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::How about a slight modification to Andy's version: replace "Reckoning to you, Pharisees!" with "Your reckoning is coming, Pharisees!". This would also work well in the preceding passage (42). --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 17:15, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Great suggestion! Please make that improvement in verse 43. I'm not sure using the exact same translation in 42 is helpful, but am open-minded about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'll put it into both now, and you can decide if you want to revise 42 after you see it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 18:16, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:46 ==

Since there's a comment about whether this verse needs further work I'll add my 2 cents. The way I read the original, the simplest interpretation is that the lawyers are being chastised for adding burdens to others while doing nothing to help with them. Assuming that these burdens are equatable to regulations ''"and transactions costs"'' may be reading too much into it as a translation. I'd suggest keeping the essence of Andy's translation, but streamlining it like this: 
:''He replied, "You lawyers will be accountable too! For you impose burdensome regulations on others, but will not lift a finger to help those who struggle with them.''
This also restores Jesus' reference to lifting a finger from the original text. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:01, 19 January 2010 (EST)

: Your suggestion is superb, Chris. You're excellent at this. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks. I've applied the change. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:05, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:47-48 ==

Regarding 11:47, why change the translation of "Woe unto you!" to say "Pity you!!", when the same phrase is translated to "Your reckoning is coming!" a few verses prior? 
Regarding 11:48, the translation is leaving out a key point of Jesus' message, that those He is addressing ''allowed'' the deeds of their fathers, not just witnessed them. That's too important a distinction to be left out in the revised version. I'd suggest the following:
:''By that you testify to sanctioning the deeds of your fathers, because they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs."''
--[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:09, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::To your first point, I don't think the same Greek word or phrase should necessarily be translated repetitively and identically in English. Modern English disfavors repetition, and the Greek was not as powerful in some ways as terms now available. The meaning changes from context to context, and the original intent of the Greek was probably not identical in the different contexts.

::Your second point is terrific, but I wonder if we can improve it further. How about:

:::''With that you endorse the deeds of your fathers, as they killed the prophets and you build their tombs."''

::Perhaps even more refinement can improve this. Suggestions welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::I've left the first item intact, and replaced the second with your revision, which I agree is a further improvement. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:06, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks again for your superb contributions, from which I (and others) have learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:08, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 ==

Since the question is being asked, I'd suggest replacing "politically incorrect" with "controversial", or even better, "heretical". Since it was a group of Pharisees looking to trap and accuse Jesus, the original meaning is most likely that they were tying to catch him in heresy, which was their domain. Quoting Jesus as saying something politically incorrect for that period would only allow Him to be embarrassed at most - these men want to have Jesus eliminated since they saw him as a threat to their authority. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:11, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:I don't think the Pharisees had an atheistic separation between church and state. Heresey would have been considered politically incorrect. The Pharisees ''hated'' Christ. They would have jumped on anything, not just heresey. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:23, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::Right, and the Pharisees did try to catch Jesus in criticism of Caesar, not only heresy. Recall the question about whether one should pay taxes to Caesar. It would have been "politically incorrect" -- and deadly -- for Jesus to answer as the Pharisees hoped.

::But I have an open mind about this and agree that further discussion is warranted. Note that because "politically incorrect" is one of the [[Best New Conservative Words]], it won't appear in any Greek-to-English lexicon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::The reason I suggested "heresy" is that it fits the intent of these Pharisees better. In Mark 14:61-64 that is the accusation that is used to condemn Jesus to death, and it improves the consistency of this translation to support that intent by the Pharisees. The point about the attempt to trick Jesus over paying taxes to Caeser is a good one, but even that was essentially a trap based on a religious question, not one about government policy. The final point is that while we criticize people today for saying and doing politically incorrect things, at worst these are social blunders with few legal consequences. The Pharisees were trying to eliminate a threat, and mere embarrassment was not going to be enough to stop a man performing actual miracles before the masses. It would take a serious criminal or heretical act to discredit Jesus, not a social gaffe. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:10, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::Nothing can discredit conservative principles, but that doesn't stop liberals from trying over every perceived gaffe a conservative makes. I don't see the Pharisees as being any different, but I have an open mind and you have made good points. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Thanks. What you say about people maliciously using gaffes to discredit people is true. Where the Bible is concerned, I'm just trying to stay "on message" with this project's focus on supporting the original intent of these passages. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::::::We all welcome the best translation of the original intent, using the most powerful modern terms available. I agree that "politically incorrect" has a connotation of superficiality, but it can be very serious in consequences also. People can lose their careers and sometimes even their lives around the world with a single politically incorrect remark, and you can see liberals today try to provoke such a remark. Solzhenitsyn spent years in hard labor in Siberia, and people languish in Cuban jails to this day for politically incorrect statements or writings. Pharisees were playing a liberal game to trap Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::Those are excellent examples of people suffering the consequences of saying the wrong things while living in modern-era oppressive states where freedom of speech is not permitted. I suspect the that typical reader is not going to think of those cases when they see the phrase "politically incorrect" used in a Biblical context, though. The essential question is, given who the questioners were and the setting they lived in at the time, could they have entrapped Jesus in a way that would eliminate him as a threat by getting him to say politically incorrect things? That seems unlikely. 
:::::::Remember that Jesus was healing people, raising the dead and performing miracles, and that this as much as his lessons were the reason for his popularity at that time (the lessons would be his enduring legacy, but the miracles were essential back then to show doubters that he spoke through the authority of God). If a man walked among us today could cure blindness and disease with a touch and raise children from the dead, who wouldn't tolerate political incorrectness on his part as a price to pay? 
:::::::Since the miracles were witnessed by many, then the best way to discredit the miracle-worker, Jesus, would be to imply that the source of his power came not from God, but from the devil to lead men away from God. Catching him in something that could be spun as heresy would be a means to that end. This interpretation is straightforward, consistent with both the original scripture and the translated versions to date, and supports conservative efforts to stand up to people who try to trap men of faith into saying things that can be spun into an attack on that faith. Sorry to be so wordy, but I've taken this project to heart and care about doing my best by it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::It's my belief that the Pharisees, like liberals, are nit picking. If a man walked among us who could cure blindness by touch, intellectual elitists who cling so desperately to their theories would be dying for a reason to ostracize him. That's exactly what the elitist Pharisees were doing to Jesus. At least I think so. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:46, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::::Nitpicking would not have led to the fullfillment of scripture through Jesus' death. When you read one of these Gospels as a whole,a nd not just in part, you get the benefit of seeing the bigger picture and the patterns that start to emerge, just as you do with any great novel. In this section, Jesus was nothing but honest in calling the Pharisees out on their hypocrisy and style-over-substance, and now through his honesty he's made enemies of them. They are now motivated to not just embarrass or pick at his teachings - they see him as a danger to their (misguided) way of life, and see him as a threat to be eliminated. They choose to entrap him and get him to make a heretical statement, which would explain his ability to perform miracles while turning the people against him. With this the pattern is set that leads to His trial and crucifixion. Scripture isn't just a story, it's a tapestry, and trying to justify something that fits the context and intention like heresy being replaced by "political incorrectness" is like replacing silk with polyester - it still holds the tapestry together, but it doesn't really belong there. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::::Chris, you're using a lot of words but haven't addressed my simple point: how would intellectual elitists treat someone who could perform miracles? And your analogy about replacing silk with polyester doesn't hold up. Were using powerful modern terms not available to the original authors which are an improvement, not replacing the original with cheap alternatives. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:15, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T16:47:23Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T16:46:24Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

I am a bit concerned by how often I am seeing the term "God" arbitrarily replaced with "the Lord." (For example, "Kingdom of God" changed to "Truth of the Lord.") The two terms are not synonymous, and I feel the difference between θεος and κυριος should be retained. Also, in the Gospel of Luke, and elsewhere on the site, "Truth" used as a translation of several different words: Kingdom, Word, gospel. This is a big problem. You can't simply replace every complex term with "truth."
:The distinction between 'Lord' and 'God', the substitution of 'Truth' for 'Word' is a matter for [[Bible Translation Issues]]. Specific problems with Luke 9-16 can be discussed here. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 10:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation of ευαγγελιον ==

Luke 9:6- I don't know if "spreading the Truth" is a very good translation here. Wouldn't a better translation of the Greek ευαγγελιζομενοι (euangelizomenoi) be "proclaiming the good news"? Or the more traditional "preaching the gospel"? I think it may be a bad idea to downplay the term "gospel" too much. After all, most conservatives should be pretty familiar with the term "gospel."
--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 15:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)Cory Howell

:Over at the Gospel of Mark, the decision was made to translate ευαγγελιον as "good news." It seems to me that the same convention should be followed here in Luke. Therefore, "spreading the Truth" in Luke 9:6 should be rendered either "proclaiming the good news" or "spreading the good news." "Proclaiming" would be more literal, and "spreading" would be a little more figurative, but would more clearly present the idea of the gospel spreading across the countryside.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the update, I think 'spreading' will be better. Is it a new Project Guideline to translate ευαγγελιον as 'good news'? [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 11:56, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Over at Mark, it looks like they are consistently using "good news," and TerryH told me in an e-mail that it was supposed to be "good news." That's all the info I have currently.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::::However, I glanced through Matthew, and it looks like the word gospel is currently still there. Perhaps we need some clarification on this issue.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

== Editing and creating quotations ==
Is it a good idea to edit existing quotes, or to create quotes where the existing work had none? The accuracy and authenticity of existing quotes may be questionable, but altered or fabricated quotes are guaranteed to be inaccurate.--[[User:jason217|Jason Samantha]] 20:54, 02 November 2009 (EDT)

== The Lord's Prayer ==

I'm looking to restrict my changes to cleanup of spelling and grammar, but I have to raise a concern that troubles me. Can the text of the Lord's Prayer in 11:1-4 be left intact instead of trying to revise it into a more contemporary form? I'm a Catholic, and was taught the Lord's Prayer as a child using the form shown here in the KJV. Even though the text of the KJV is a translation itself, it has been accepted by English-speaking Christians for hundreds of years. I just don't see a need to "fix" what isn't broken in the Bible, especially when it's supposed to be a direct instruction from Jesus. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

: Chris, you express a reasonable view, but honestly I can't say I agree. The English language changes over time. Not everyone can understand Shakespeare today, and this disconnect gets worse every new day. Precision is lost also. Who talks about others being "indebted" to us now? It's imprecise in 2009 English. On the positive side, powerful new words and concepts are constantly being discovered that were not available in 1611. Why ride in horse-and-buggy when Corvettes are available?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 8 January 2010 (EST)

::I can certainly understand your viewpoint, and agree with it in general. As I mentioned above, I learned the Lord's prayer as a child, and it took some time before I understood what "hallowed" meant. The translated text is not worse, although "holy is your name" seems to sound better than "your name is holy". My feeling is taht judgment can be used selectively to determine which parts of a Bible translation should be brought up to date (most, so it's understandable), and which should be left intact out of respect for tradition and the beauty of KJV-style prose that is lost in modern English (a small but important amount).
::I appreciate you letting me express my thoughts. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:08, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:::Chris, I understand your viewpoint and agree that the [[KJV]] rendition is majestic. There is certainly a time and a place for that, and perhaps for some people it is for every time and every place. But the market is speaking loudly and clearly: the KJV loses market share every day. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that trend is not likely to change. It's all well and good for older folks to cling to the translation of their youth, but that's not helping younger folks or people who are hearing it for the first time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks for the responses. I consider the question addressed, and will return to copy editing. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 21:24, 10 January 2010 (EST)

== Question about 15:13 ==

Could the wording of this translation be changed from "where he wasted his life with women and booze." to "where he wasted his life through sinful behavior."? That seems closer to describing the meaning of "riotous living" in this passage. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:15, 13 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:33-34 ==

By stating ''The mind is the window to the body. '' in Luke 11:34a, the connection to Luke 11:33 is lost, as neither ''window'' nor ''mind'' is mentioned in the previous verse.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:26, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:This is an interesting pair of verses to discuss, but I have a different reason than FrankC for thinking that the CBP translation needs to be revised. Matthew 6:22-24 relates the same lesson from Jesus, and in both the Luke and Matthew gospels the original intent seems to be an emphasis on having a single-minded devotion to God and living one's life by God's rules. When you lose that single-minded focus on a God-centered life, you are in effect allowing temptation to work on you. Both gospels discuss this in black-and-white terms; you are either focused on God, or you are darkened by evil. This may seem extreme, but Jesus had a tendency to use simple, clear examples in his lessons that didn't much leave room for watering his messages down. 
:Some references to this interpretation can be found [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.lviii.html here], [http://www.biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Eye.htm here] and [http://bible.cc/matthew/6-22.htm here].
:If others here agree with this interpretation, then the current translation of Luke 11:34 is actually taking the message away from the original intent. It's good to be open-minded about many things, but not where God is concerned ("Keep your eyes on the prize"). The conservative value of open-mindedness should be emphasized in more appropriate place, but not here. My suggested CBP translation for this passage would be this:
::''The window to God's light is the eye. When your eye is focused on God, your body is filled with his light; but when your eye is distracted or turned away then your body is left in darkness.''
:I'll leave the final decision to the senior editors here - this is only a recommendation. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:25, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:43 ==

Pretty minor point. I respectfully disagree with the choice of "reckoning to you" for οὐαὶ ὑμῖν. ''Ouai'' is an extremely common interjection in Greek usually translated as "woe" or "alas" along with its object. In this case the object is the plural dative pronoun of su, which means "you all." The combination of ''ouai su'' is so commonly used in the Bible that it's idiomatic. The idiom corresponds to those we're famliar with in English: "woe to you," "woe unto you," or "alas for you." So this is an example of where I think the KJV correctly translates the idiom and is perhaps the reason it is familiar to us as English speakers so many hundreds of years later. My only point here is that since I've never heard someone say "reckoning to you" and to the extent a familiar English idiom directly corresponds to the meaning of a Greek idiom I don't think it should not be discarded. Idioms like this have the ability to powerfully and effectively convey their meaning. I also think "reckoning is textually incorrect because the Gospel writers had word for "reckoning" or "judgment," depending on the context you intended. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 13:53, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:You make good points. Thank you. I have an open mind about this, and think "reckoning" might be improved. But "woe to you" or "alas to you"? Those strike me as very archaic and ambiguous. Is it a curse? No, I don't think that is the original intent. People just don't talk that way anymore, and a listener to those phrases does not understand the original intent. Also, as to "you all," that's too colloquial for a Bible translation, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Schlafly. I also don't think it's a curse, but "reckoning" does refer to a judgment or curse. ''Ouai'' is an interjection, literally "woe!" as in "woe is me" or "woe unto you" or "alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well." I guess we just see the power of the idiom differently. I can't think of anything powerful that retains the meaning of ''ouai'' that I'm familiar with but I am trying and my mind is open to capturing a more contemporary meaning of "woe." One suggestion I would make is that the sense of ''ouai'' doesn't seem judgmental, as "reckoning" would imply that there will be a reckoning upon you (and there's no indication that the interjection is present progressive or gerundial), but purely interjectory along the lines of "poor you." As for the "you all," say no more. That was a carry-over from my internal dialog about plural pronouns like ὑμῖν when I read them because English has no plural form of "you" like Greek or Romance languages do. Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting "woe to you all" is appropriate. :-) Sorry about being unclear. By the way, the only reason I think this matters is that ''ouai'' or something similar might appear 50 or more times in the New Testament and its use is consistently translated as "woe" or "alas" from the Greek in the KJV. Catholics might find the similar Douay rendering of ''vae vobis''' as "woe unto you" familiar. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 15:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::I don't see any merit to "alas" in this context. "Alas to you who take the highest seats at the synagogue"??? A new listener of that is left dumbfounded and confused. What's the point of it? I'm not even sure myself with that rendering.

:::"Woe" seems better, but still archaic.

:::The broader point is this: we're not trying to translate the Bible so it sounds familiar to people who have already memorized, or frequently recite, an old translation. We're trying to translate the Bible so it renders the original intent as precisely as possible to ''any'' modern listener, and particularly a new one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::How about a slight modification to Andy's version: replace "Reckoning to you, Pharisees!" with "Your reckoning is coming, Pharisees!". This would also work well in the preceding passage (42). --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 17:15, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Great suggestion! Please make that improvement in verse 43. I'm not sure using the exact same translation in 42 is helpful, but am open-minded about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'll put it into both now, and you can decide if you want to revise 42 after you see it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 18:16, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:46 ==

Since there's a comment about whether this verse needs further work I'll add my 2 cents. The way I read the original, the simplest interpretation is that the lawyers are being chastised for adding burdens to others while doing nothing to help with them. Assuming that these burdens are equatable to regulations ''"and transactions costs"'' may be reading too much into it as a translation. I'd suggest keeping the essence of Andy's translation, but streamlining it like this: 
:''He replied, "You lawyers will be accountable too! For you impose burdensome regulations on others, but will not lift a finger to help those who struggle with them.''
This also restores Jesus' reference to lifting a finger from the original text. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:01, 19 January 2010 (EST)

: Your suggestion is superb, Chris. You're excellent at this. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks. I've applied the change. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:05, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:47-48 ==

Regarding 11:47, why change the translation of "Woe unto you!" to say "Pity you!!", when the same phrase is translated to "Your reckoning is coming!" a few verses prior? 
Regarding 11:48, the translation is leaving out a key point of Jesus' message, that those He is addressing ''allowed'' the deeds of their fathers, not just witnessed them. That's too important a distinction to be left out in the revised version. I'd suggest the following:
:''By that you testify to sanctioning the deeds of your fathers, because they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs."''
--[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:09, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::To your first point, I don't think the same Greek word or phrase should necessarily be translated repetitively and identically in English. Modern English disfavors repetition, and the Greek was not as powerful in some ways as terms now available. The meaning changes from context to context, and the original intent of the Greek was probably not identical in the different contexts.

::Your second point is terrific, but I wonder if we can improve it further. How about:

:::''With that you endorse the deeds of your fathers, as they killed the prophets and you build their tombs."''

::Perhaps even more refinement can improve this. Suggestions welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::I've left the first item intact, and replaced the second with your revision, which I agree is a further improvement. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:06, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks again for your superb contributions, from which I (and others) have learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:08, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 ==

Since the question is being asked, I'd suggest replacing "politically incorrect" with "controversial", or even better, "heretical". Since it was a group of Pharisees looking to trap and accuse Jesus, the original meaning is most likely that they were tying to catch him in heresy, which was their domain. Quoting Jesus as saying something politically incorrect for that period would only allow Him to be embarrassed at most - these men want to have Jesus eliminated since they saw him as a threat to their authority. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:11, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:I don't think the Pharisees had an atheistic separation between church and state. Heresey would have been considered politically incorrect. The Pharisees ''hated'' Christ. They would have jumped on anything, not just heresey. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:23, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::Right, and the Pharisees did try to catch Jesus in criticism of Caesar, not only heresy. Recall the question about whether one should pay taxes to Caesar. It would have been "politically incorrect" -- and deadly -- for Jesus to answer as the Pharisees hoped.

::But I have an open mind about this and agree that further discussion is warranted. Note that because "politically incorrect" is one of the [[Best New Conservative Words]], it won't appear in any Greek-to-English lexicon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::The reason I suggested "heresy" is that it fits the intent of these Pharisees better. In Mark 14:61-64 that is the accusation that is used to condemn Jesus to death, and it improves the consistency of this translation to support that intent by the Pharisees. The point about the attempt to trick Jesus over paying taxes to Caeser is a good one, but even that was essentially a trap based on a religious question, not one about government policy. The final point is that while we criticize people today for saying and doing politically incorrect things, at worst these are social blunders with few legal consequences. The Pharisees were trying to eliminate a threat, and mere embarrassment was not going to be enough to stop a man performing actual miracles before the masses. It would take a serious criminal or heretical act to discredit Jesus, not a social gaffe. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:10, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::Nothing can discredit conservative principles, but that doesn't stop liberals from trying over every perceived gaffe a conservative makes. I don't see the Pharisees as being any different, but I have an open mind and you have made good points. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Thanks. What you say about people maliciously using gaffes to discredit people is true. Where the Bible is concerned, I'm just trying to stay "on message" with this project's focus on supporting the original intent of these passages. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::::::We all welcome the best translation of the original intent, using the most powerful modern terms available. I agree that "politically incorrect" has a connotation of superficiality, but it can be very serious in consequences also. People can lose their careers and sometimes even their lives around the world with a single politically incorrect remark, and you can see liberals today try to provoke such a remark. Solzhenitsyn spent years in hard labor in Siberia, and people languish in Cuban jails to this day for politically incorrect statements or writings. Pharisees were playing a liberal game to trap Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::Those are excellent examples of people suffering the consequences of saying the wrong things while living in modern-era oppressive states where freedom of speech is not permitted. I suspect the that typical reader is not going to think of those cases when they see the phrase "politically incorrect" used in a Biblical context, though. The essential question is, given who the questioners were and the setting they lived in at the time, could they have entrapped Jesus in a way that would eliminate him as a threat by getting him to say politically incorrect things? That seems unlikely. 
:::::::Remember that Jesus was healing people, raising the dead and performing miracles, and that this as much as his lessons were the reason for his popularity at that time (the lessons would be his enduring legacy, but the miracles were essential back then to show doubters that he spoke through the authority of God). If a man walked among us today could cure blindness and disease with a touch and raise children from the dead, who wouldn't tolerate political incorrectness on his part as a price to pay? 
:::::::Since the miracles were witnessed by many, then the best way to discredit the miracle-worker, Jesus, would be to imply that the source of his power came not from God, but from the devil to lead men away from God. Catching him in something that could be spun as heresy would be a means to that end. This interpretation is straightforward, consistent with both the original scripture and the translated versions to date, and supports conservative efforts to stand up to people who try to trap men of faith into saying things that can be spun into an attack on that faith. Sorry to be so wordy, but I've taken this project to heart and care about doing my best by it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::it's my belief that the Pharisees, like liberals, are nit picking. If a man walked among us who could cure blindness by touch, intellectual elitists who cling so desperately to their theories would be dying for a reason to ostracize him. That's exactly what the elitist Pharisees were doing to Jesus. At least I think so. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:46, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T15:23:21Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T15:21:04Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

I am a bit concerned by how often I am seeing the term "God" arbitrarily replaced with "the Lord." (For example, "Kingdom of God" changed to "Truth of the Lord.") The two terms are not synonymous, and I feel the difference between θεος and κυριος should be retained. Also, in the Gospel of Luke, and elsewhere on the site, "Truth" used as a translation of several different words: Kingdom, Word, gospel. This is a big problem. You can't simply replace every complex term with "truth."
:The distinction between 'Lord' and 'God', the substitution of 'Truth' for 'Word' is a matter for [[Bible Translation Issues]]. Specific problems with Luke 9-16 can be discussed here. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 10:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation of ευαγγελιον ==

Luke 9:6- I don't know if "spreading the Truth" is a very good translation here. Wouldn't a better translation of the Greek ευαγγελιζομενοι (euangelizomenoi) be "proclaiming the good news"? Or the more traditional "preaching the gospel"? I think it may be a bad idea to downplay the term "gospel" too much. After all, most conservatives should be pretty familiar with the term "gospel."
--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 15:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)Cory Howell

:Over at the Gospel of Mark, the decision was made to translate ευαγγελιον as "good news." It seems to me that the same convention should be followed here in Luke. Therefore, "spreading the Truth" in Luke 9:6 should be rendered either "proclaiming the good news" or "spreading the good news." "Proclaiming" would be more literal, and "spreading" would be a little more figurative, but would more clearly present the idea of the gospel spreading across the countryside.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the update, I think 'spreading' will be better. Is it a new Project Guideline to translate ευαγγελιον as 'good news'? [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 11:56, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Over at Mark, it looks like they are consistently using "good news," and TerryH told me in an e-mail that it was supposed to be "good news." That's all the info I have currently.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::::However, I glanced through Matthew, and it looks like the word gospel is currently still there. Perhaps we need some clarification on this issue.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

== Editing and creating quotations ==
Is it a good idea to edit existing quotes, or to create quotes where the existing work had none? The accuracy and authenticity of existing quotes may be questionable, but altered or fabricated quotes are guaranteed to be inaccurate.--[[User:jason217|Jason Samantha]] 20:54, 02 November 2009 (EDT)

== The Lord's Prayer ==

I'm looking to restrict my changes to cleanup of spelling and grammar, but I have to raise a concern that troubles me. Can the text of the Lord's Prayer in 11:1-4 be left intact instead of trying to revise it into a more contemporary form? I'm a Catholic, and was taught the Lord's Prayer as a child using the form shown here in the KJV. Even though the text of the KJV is a translation itself, it has been accepted by English-speaking Christians for hundreds of years. I just don't see a need to "fix" what isn't broken in the Bible, especially when it's supposed to be a direct instruction from Jesus. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

: Chris, you express a reasonable view, but honestly I can't say I agree. The English language changes over time. Not everyone can understand Shakespeare today, and this disconnect gets worse every new day. Precision is lost also. Who talks about others being "indebted" to us now? It's imprecise in 2009 English. On the positive side, powerful new words and concepts are constantly being discovered that were not available in 1611. Why ride in horse-and-buggy when Corvettes are available?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 8 January 2010 (EST)

::I can certainly understand your viewpoint, and agree with it in general. As I mentioned above, I learned the Lord's prayer as a child, and it took some time before I understood what "hallowed" meant. The translated text is not worse, although "holy is your name" seems to sound better than "your name is holy". My feeling is taht judgment can be used selectively to determine which parts of a Bible translation should be brought up to date (most, so it's understandable), and which should be left intact out of respect for tradition and the beauty of KJV-style prose that is lost in modern English (a small but important amount).
::I appreciate you letting me express my thoughts. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:08, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:::Chris, I understand your viewpoint and agree that the [[KJV]] rendition is majestic. There is certainly a time and a place for that, and perhaps for some people it is for every time and every place. But the market is speaking loudly and clearly: the KJV loses market share every day. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that trend is not likely to change. It's all well and good for older folks to cling to the translation of their youth, but that's not helping younger folks or people who are hearing it for the first time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 9 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks for the responses. I consider the question addressed, and will return to copy editing. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 21:24, 10 January 2010 (EST)

== Question about 15:13 ==

Could the wording of this translation be changed from "where he wasted his life with women and booze." to "where he wasted his life through sinful behavior."? That seems closer to describing the meaning of "riotous living" in this passage. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:15, 13 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:33-34 ==

By stating ''The mind is the window to the body. '' in Luke 11:34a, the connection to Luke 11:33 is lost, as neither ''window'' nor ''mind'' is mentioned in the previous verse.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:26, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:This is an interesting pair of verses to discuss, but I have a different reason than FrankC for thinking that the CBP translation needs to be revised. Matthew 6:22-24 relates the same lesson from Jesus, and in both the Luke and Matthew gospels the original intent seems to be an emphasis on having a single-minded devotion to God and living one's life by God's rules. When you lose that single-minded focus on a God-centered life, you are in effect allowing temptation to work on you. Both gospels discuss this in black-and-white terms; you are either focused on God, or you are darkened by evil. This may seem extreme, but Jesus had a tendency to use simple, clear examples in his lessons that didn't much leave room for watering his messages down. 
:Some references to this interpretation can be found [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.lviii.html here], [http://www.biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Eye.htm here] and [http://bible.cc/matthew/6-22.htm here].
:If others here agree with this interpretation, then the current translation of Luke 11:34 is actually taking the message away from the original intent. It's good to be open-minded about many things, but not where God is concerned ("Keep your eyes on the prize"). The conservative value of open-mindedness should be emphasized in more appropriate place, but not here. My suggested CBP translation for this passage would be this:
::''The window to God's light is the eye. When your eye is focused on God, your body is filled with his light; but when your eye is distracted or turned away then your body is left in darkness.''
:I'll leave the final decision to the senior editors here - this is only a recommendation. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:25, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Luke 11:43 ==

Pretty minor point. I respectfully disagree with the choice of "reckoning to you" for οὐαὶ ὑμῖν. ''Ouai'' is an extremely common interjection in Greek usually translated as "woe" or "alas" along with its object. In this case the object is the plural dative pronoun of su, which means "you all." The combination of ''ouai su'' is so commonly used in the Bible that it's idiomatic. The idiom corresponds to those we're famliar with in English: "woe to you," "woe unto you," or "alas for you." So this is an example of where I think the KJV correctly translates the idiom and is perhaps the reason it is familiar to us as English speakers so many hundreds of years later. My only point here is that since I've never heard someone say "reckoning to you" and to the extent a familiar English idiom directly corresponds to the meaning of a Greek idiom I don't think it should not be discarded. Idioms like this have the ability to powerfully and effectively convey their meaning. I also think "reckoning is textually incorrect because the Gospel writers had word for "reckoning" or "judgment," depending on the context you intended. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 13:53, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:You make good points. Thank you. I have an open mind about this, and think "reckoning" might be improved. But "woe to you" or "alas to you"? Those strike me as very archaic and ambiguous. Is it a curse? No, I don't think that is the original intent. People just don't talk that way anymore, and a listener to those phrases does not understand the original intent. Also, as to "you all," that's too colloquial for a Bible translation, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Schlafly. I also don't think it's a curse, but "reckoning" does refer to a judgment or curse. ''Ouai'' is an interjection, literally "woe!" as in "woe is me" or "woe unto you" or "alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well." I guess we just see the power of the idiom differently. I can't think of anything powerful that retains the meaning of ''ouai'' that I'm familiar with but I am trying and my mind is open to capturing a more contemporary meaning of "woe." One suggestion I would make is that the sense of ''ouai'' doesn't seem judgmental, as "reckoning" would imply that there will be a reckoning upon you (and there's no indication that the interjection is present progressive or gerundial), but purely interjectory along the lines of "poor you." As for the "you all," say no more. That was a carry-over from my internal dialog about plural pronouns like ὑμῖν when I read them because English has no plural form of "you" like Greek or Romance languages do. Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting "woe to you all" is appropriate. :-) Sorry about being unclear. By the way, the only reason I think this matters is that ''ouai'' or something similar might appear 50 or more times in the New Testament and its use is consistently translated as "woe" or "alas" from the Greek in the KJV. Catholics might find the similar Douay rendering of ''vae vobis''' as "woe unto you" familiar. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 15:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::I don't see any merit to "alas" in this context. "Alas to you who take the highest seats at the synagogue"??? A new listener of that is left dumbfounded and confused. What's the point of it? I'm not even sure myself with that rendering.

:::"Woe" seems better, but still archaic.

:::The broader point is this: we're not trying to translate the Bible so it sounds familiar to people who have already memorized, or frequently recite, an old translation. We're trying to translate the Bible so it renders the original intent as precisely as possible to ''any'' modern listener, and particularly a new one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::How about a slight modification to Andy's version: replace "Reckoning to you, Pharisees!" with "Your reckoning is coming, Pharisees!". This would also work well in the preceding passage (42). --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 17:15, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Great suggestion! Please make that improvement in verse 43. I'm not sure using the exact same translation in 42 is helpful, but am open-minded about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'll put it into both now, and you can decide if you want to revise 42 after you see it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 18:16, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:46 ==

Since there's a comment about whether this verse needs further work I'll add my 2 cents. The way I read the original, the simplest interpretation is that the lawyers are being chastised for adding burdens to others while doing nothing to help with them. Assuming that these burdens are equatable to regulations ''"and transactions costs"'' may be reading too much into it as a translation. I'd suggest keeping the essence of Andy's translation, but streamlining it like this: 
:''He replied, "You lawyers will be accountable too! For you impose burdensome regulations on others, but will not lift a finger to help those who struggle with them.''
This also restores Jesus' reference to lifting a finger from the original text. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:01, 19 January 2010 (EST)

: Your suggestion is superb, Chris. You're excellent at this. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks. I've applied the change. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:05, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== 11:47-48 ==

Regarding 11:47, why change the translation of "Woe unto you!" to say "Pity you!!", when the same phrase is translated to "Your reckoning is coming!" a few verses prior? 
Regarding 11:48, the translation is leaving out a key point of Jesus' message, that those He is addressing ''allowed'' the deeds of their fathers, not just witnessed them. That's too important a distinction to be left out in the revised version. I'd suggest the following:
:''By that you testify to sanctioning the deeds of your fathers, because they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs."''
--[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:09, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::To your first point, I don't think the same Greek word or phrase should necessarily be translated repetitively and identically in English. Modern English disfavors repetition, and the Greek was not as powerful in some ways as terms now available. The meaning changes from context to context, and the original intent of the Greek was probably not identical in the different contexts.

::Your second point is terrific, but I wonder if we can improve it further. How about:

:::''With that you endorse the deeds of your fathers, as they killed the prophets and you build their tombs."''

::Perhaps even more refinement can improve this. Suggestions welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::I've left the first item intact, and replaced the second with your revision, which I agree is a further improvement. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 16:06, 19 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thanks again for your superb contributions, from which I (and others) have learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:08, 19 January 2010 (EST)

== "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 ==

Since the question is being asked, I'd suggest replacing "politically incorrect" with "controversial", or even better, "heretical". Since it was a group of Pharisees looking to trap and accuse Jesus, the original meaning is most likely that they were tying to catch him in heresy, which was their domain. Quoting Jesus as saying something politically incorrect for that period would only allow Him to be embarrassed at most - these men want to have Jesus eliminated since they saw him as a threat to their authority. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:11, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:I don't think the Pharisees had an atheistic separation between church and state. Heresey would have been considered politically incorrect. The Pharisees ''hated'' Christ. They would have jumped on anything, not just heresey. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:23, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::Right, and the Pharisees did try to catch Jesus in criticism of Caesar, not only heresy. Recall the question about whether one should pay taxes to Caesar. It would have been "politically incorrect" -- and deadly -- for Jesus to answer as the Pharisees hoped.

::But I have an open mind about this and agree that further discussion is warranted. Note that because "politically incorrect" is one of the [[Best New Conservative Words]], it won't appear in any Greek-to-English lexicon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:39, 27 January 2010 (EST)

:::The reason I suggested "heresy" is that it fits the intent of these Pharisees better. In Mark 14:61-64 that is the accusation that is used to condemn Jesus to death, and it improves the consistency of this translation to support that intent by the Pharisees. The point about the attempt to trick Jesus over paying taxes to Caeser is a good one, but even that was essentially a trap based on a religious question, not one about government policy. The final point is that while we criticize people today for saying and doing politically incorrect things, at worst these are social blunders with few legal consequences. The Pharisees were trying to eliminate a threat, and mere embarrassment was not going to be enough to stop a man performing actual miracles before the masses. It would take a serious criminal or heretical act to discredit Jesus, not a social gaffe. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:10, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::Nothing can discredit conservative principles, but that doesn't stop liberals from trying. I don't see the Pharisees as being any different, but I have an open mind and you have made good points. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T14:28:48Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

2010-01-27T14:23:04Z

JeffT: /* "Politically Incorrect" in 11:54 */

Catholic Charities USA

2010-01-27T14:03:37Z

JeffT: refs

'''Catholic Charities USA''' is the national office for over 1,700 Catholic Charities agencies and institutions nationwide <ref>HTTP://WWW.catholiccharities.org</ref>. Some of those agencies report ACORN as being a key partner organization <ref>CCUSA 2008 Annual Survey</ref>.
==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:African Americans

2010-01-25T20:55:02Z

JeffT: /* Some problems */ oops!

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 'African American' is less popular in the 2010s, more and more wish to be called simply 'AMERICAN' by the country of their birth. Most African-Americans, per se, don't come from, nor have parents or grandparents from the continent Africa. What about non-African races in the continent, such as [[Boers]] and [[Afrikaan]]ers of white European (Dutch/French or German) descent in [[South Africa]]? We should get over the need to hyphenate or view ourselves as "races" or "colors" of people, esp. in the time we're living when the USA elected a man of half-Kenyan/half-white American heritage. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To many blacks, the term 'negro' is at best archaic and condescending, and at worst, a derivative of 'nigger'. We can argue semantics all day, but lets not insult people in an effort not to be politically correct. And 'the other side of town'? Not where I live. [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 15:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The reference to [[political correctness]] on the [[Main Page]] seems to have been removed. Perhaps political correctness is acceptable here after all. Though it doesn't yet seem to extend as far as [[homosexuality]].
::"He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light." (Job 33:28)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&diff=48204&oldid=48150 here] on 19th March 2007
:::"He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." (Leviticus 27:33)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: In proper society, in public or in the workplace (make sure this isn't in the range of NSFW) there are rules, social cues or [[taboo]]s to go by, and one of them is the improper/offensive/deragatory words to describe groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion (i.e. negative use of "Jew" or "Jewish"), gender, sexuality (i.e. to say "gay" as a putdown or to declare something bad) and disability (i.e. for middle school kids to call others "retard" or stated something is.) The common knowledge on 'negro', 'colored' and 'black' in some social circles as unacceptable, obscene or hurtful is present and mass consciousness by the American people of all races to abandon those archaic or unrequested words by the African-American community. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:55, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Give me a break==

There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being uncouth. Calling them Negroes is just uncouth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Only a few elderly whites still use (in private) or blacks may call themselves the term, while the younger generations born or raised since the 1960's don't at all. Ironically, ''Negro'' means "black" in Latin and how the Germanic languages such as English developed an alteration of ''Negro'' into ''Nig-ger'' with strong negative meanings to dehumanize Africans and African-Americans alike. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:52, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Proof==

My addition to this article ("Black people originated as descendants of Cain, along with Asians, Arabs, American Indians, Polynesians and other non-white races") has been proved by Creation Science. Creation Geneticists have found the gene EVL6 in all the races I listed, and EVL6 is traceable back to Cain.

:Uh huh, right. I'd love to see how they managed to trace it back to Cain, assuming you're not just making this all up yourself. Your source would be what?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, he's just making it up. And if he doesn't watch his step, he'll be blocked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Awan. Probably. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== This Article Phails.... What to add first? ==

A far more extensive history...
List of awesome contributors...
Modern history, culture, issues...
Statistics...

Man... This article seriously phails. >_<
(Decides to add at random)

And by the way, saying that a contemporary ethnic name is PC is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. I say, what gives one the right to name another ethnicy anyway? (Negros, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos...) Perhaps it would be better (4 ONCE in history) to not push one's opinion on matters that don't concern one, hmm? Let ethnicies name themselves, thank you.
 
[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
I know pictures are nice to have in Encyclopedia articles (especially Wiki type) but does anyone really need a picture to know what an African American looks like? and why is that picture David Patterson by the way? [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:I am in agreement. I find this picture to be a not very flattering picture of David Patterson, and therefore a not very flattering picture of what appears on this page to represent an entire race of people. I am inclined to agree that the picture is unnecessary and if it must remain, find a less rude, more relevant picture.

:: 1940s-era actress/singer [[Lena Horne]] is African-American with some Caucasian, American Indian and probably Latino/Latin American ancestry, but she's known in the black community as a black person. Horne was involved in civil rights causes in the 1950's for "persons of color" like her, and her skin color was referred to as "caramel" by the press of her time might well de-emphasize her racial background. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:59, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Lock==
Why is this page locked? I have a reference I'd like to add. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to fix some of the writing, too. Who wrote "This people group"? In fact, the whole article needs rewriting. -[[User:JakeW|JakeW]]

Do any of you have any actual African American culture to add to this article? Maybe a little bit about their natural physique, or imperialism, or tribes. anything about martin Luther K.? And can someone fix the emancipation proclamation thing? I specifically learned that it only freed slaves who were specifically in the north, it wasn't until after the war that the fourteenth amendment was passed, given blacks full rights as Americans. - signed by anon IP

: Agree. I should find a file photo of Martin Luther King Jr. (from his own article, of course) and place it in the African-American article. His career as a civil rights leader has a humongous impact on life of minorities in America and other countries worldwide. Notice the majority of "conservatives" today, compared to let's say 40 yrs. ago when it was a "liberal" activist cause of celebre, admire MLK jr. since the terminology of what's politically or socially "conservative" or "liberal" from the 1960's compared to 2009 changes over time. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 12:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::I unlocked it. edit away! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:23, 14 December 2009 (EST)
==Some problems==
This article has some problems. It applies the distracting label of "first black" to Patterson and Obama. The article is apparently still locked. Thanks. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:51, 25 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:African Americans

2010-01-25T20:51:46Z

JeffT: /* Lock */

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 'African American' is less popular in the 2010s, more and more wish to be called simply 'AMERICAN' by the country of their birth. Most African-Americans, per se, don't come from, nor have parents or grandparents from the continent Africa. What about non-African races in the continent, such as [[Boers]] and [[Afrikaan]]ers of white European (Dutch/French or German) descent in [[South Africa]]? We should get over the need to hyphenate or view ourselves as "races" or "colors" of people, esp. in the time we're living when the USA elected a man of half-Kenyan/half-white American heritage. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To many blacks, the term 'negro' is at best archaic and condescending, and at worst, a derivative of 'nigger'. We can argue semantics all day, but lets not insult people in an effort not to be politically correct. And 'the other side of town'? Not where I live. [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 15:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The reference to [[political correctness]] on the [[Main Page]] seems to have been removed. Perhaps political correctness is acceptable here after all. Though it doesn't yet seem to extend as far as [[homosexuality]].
::"He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light." (Job 33:28)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&diff=48204&oldid=48150 here] on 19th March 2007
:::"He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." (Leviticus 27:33)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: In proper society, in public or in the workplace (make sure this isn't in the range of NSFW) there are rules, social cues or [[taboo]]s to go by, and one of them is the improper/offensive/deragatory words to describe groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion (i.e. negative use of "Jew" or "Jewish"), gender, sexuality (i.e. to say "gay" as a putdown or to declare something bad) and disability (i.e. for middle school kids to call others "retard" or stated something is.) The common knowledge on 'negro', 'colored' and 'black' in some social circles as unacceptable, obscene or hurtful is present and mass consciousness by the American people of all races to abandon those archaic or unrequested words by the African-American community. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:55, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Give me a break==

There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being uncouth. Calling them Negroes is just uncouth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Only a few elderly whites still use (in private) or blacks may call themselves the term, while the younger generations born or raised since the 1960's don't at all. Ironically, ''Negro'' means "black" in Latin and how the Germanic languages such as English developed an alteration of ''Negro'' into ''Nig-ger'' with strong negative meanings to dehumanize Africans and African-Americans alike. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:52, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Proof==

My addition to this article ("Black people originated as descendants of Cain, along with Asians, Arabs, American Indians, Polynesians and other non-white races") has been proved by Creation Science. Creation Geneticists have found the gene EVL6 in all the races I listed, and EVL6 is traceable back to Cain.

:Uh huh, right. I'd love to see how they managed to trace it back to Cain, assuming you're not just making this all up yourself. Your source would be what?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, he's just making it up. And if he doesn't watch his step, he'll be blocked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Awan. Probably. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== This Article Phails.... What to add first? ==

A far more extensive history...
List of awesome contributors...
Modern history, culture, issues...
Statistics...

Man... This article seriously phails. >_<
(Decides to add at random)

And by the way, saying that a contemporary ethnic name is PC is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. I say, what gives one the right to name another ethnicy anyway? (Negros, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos...) Perhaps it would be better (4 ONCE in history) to not push one's opinion on matters that don't concern one, hmm? Let ethnicies name themselves, thank you.
 
[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
I know pictures are nice to have in Encyclopedia articles (especially Wiki type) but does anyone really need a picture to know what an African American looks like? and why is that picture David Patterson by the way? [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:I am in agreement. I find this picture to be a not very flattering picture of David Patterson, and therefore a not very flattering picture of what appears on this page to represent an entire race of people. I am inclined to agree that the picture is unnecessary and if it must remain, find a less rude, more relevant picture.

:: 1940s-era actress/singer [[Lena Horne]] is African-American with some Caucasian, American Indian and probably Latino/Latin American ancestry, but she's known in the black community as a black person. Horne was involved in civil rights causes in the 1950's for "persons of color" like her, and her skin color was referred to as "caramel" by the press of her time might well de-emphasize her racial background. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:59, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Lock==
Why is this page locked? I have a reference I'd like to add. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to fix some of the writing, too. Who wrote "This people group"? In fact, the whole article needs rewriting. -[[User:JakeW|JakeW]]

Do any of you have any actual African American culture to add to this article? Maybe a little bit about their natural physique, or imperialism, or tribes. anything about martin Luther K.? And can someone fix the emancipation proclamation thing? I specifically learned that it only freed slaves who were specifically in the north, it wasn't until after the war that the fourteenth amendment was passed, given blacks full rights as Americans. - signed by anon IP

: Agree. I should find a file photo of Martin Luther King Jr. (from his own article, of course) and place it in the African-American article. His career as a civil rights leader has a humongous impact on life of minorities in America and other countries worldwide. Notice the majority of "conservatives" today, compared to let's say 40 yrs. ago when it was a "liberal" activist cause of celebre, admire MLK jr. since the terminology of what's politically or socially "conservative" or "liberal" from the 1960's compared to 2009 changes over time. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 12:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::I unlocked it. edit away! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:23, 14 December 2009 (EST)
==Some problems==
This article has some problems. It applies the distracting label of "first black" to Patterson and Obama. It also says that the terminology "black" is out of favor. This is arguable, if not false, as evidenced by use in the article itself. The article is apparently still locked. Thanks. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:51, 25 January 2010 (EST)

Catholic Charities USA

2010-01-18T19:28:30Z

JeffT: Created page with ''''Catholic Charities USA''' is the national office for over 1,700 Catholic Charities agencies and institutions nationwide <ref>HTTP://WWW.catholiccharities.org</ref>. Some of th...'

Cincinnati Bengals

2009-11-22T22:49:04Z

JeffT: liberals can't stop this star running back

[[Image:Cincinnati-Bengals-Logo.gif|right]]
The '''Cincinnati Bengals''' are a [[National Football League]] franchise team based in [[Cincinnati]], [[Ohio]]. They are part of the [[American Football Conference]] (AFC) and play in the AFC North Division.
==Roster==
===Quarterbacks===
* - J.T. O'Sullivan
*9 - [[Carson Palmer]]
*5 - Jordan Palmer

===Running Backs===
*32 - Cedric Benson
*39 - James Johnson
*23 - Chris Perry
*33 - Kenny Watson
*27 - DeDe Dorsey
*27 - [[Larry Johnson]]

===Fullbacks===
*49 - Daniel Coats

===Wide Receivers===
*85 - [[Chad Ocho Cinco]]
*15 - [[Chris Henry]]
*87 - Andre Caldwell
* - [[Laveranues Coles]]
*89 - Jerome Simpson
*83 - Antonio Chatman

===Tight Ends===
*82 - Reggie Kelly
*80 - Nate Lawrie
*48 - Brad St. Louis
*81 - Ben Utecht

===Offensive Tackles===
*73 - Anthony Collins
*76 - Levi Jones
*62 - Nate Livings
*74 - Dennis Roland
*70 - Kirk Barton

===Guards===
*75 - Scott Kooistra
*77 - Andrew Whitworth
*60 - Andrew Crummey
*66 - Evan Mathis
*63 - Bobbie Williams

===Centers===
*64 - Kyle Cook
*65 - Dan Santucci
*53 - Eric Ghiaciuc

===Defensive Ends===
*68 - Jonathan Fanene
*96 - Chris Harrington
*98 - Antwan Odom
*91 Robert Geathers
*50 - Eric Henderson
*92 - Frostee Rucker

===Defensive Tackles===
*95 - Orien Harris
*94 - Domata Peko
*90 - Pat Sims
*99 - Jason Shirley
*97 - John Thornton

===Linebackers===
*52 - Abdul Hodge
*55 - Keith Rivers
*56 - Daryll Blackstock
*93 - Rashd Jeanty
*59 - Brandon Johnson
*57 - Dhani Jones
*50 - Jim Maxwell

===Cornerbacks===
*22 - Johnathan Joseph
*21 - Simeon Castille
*25 - Jamar Fletcher
*29 - Leon Hall
*20 - David Jones
*24 - Geoffrey Pope

===Safeties===
*40 - John Busing
*42 - Chris Crocker
*44 - Mike Doss
*34 - Kyries Hebert
*41 - Chinedum Ndukwe
*28 - Dexter Jackson
*47 - Corey Lynch
*26 - Marvin White

===Kickers===
*17 - [[Shayne Graham]]

===Punters===
*19 - Kyle Larson

==See also==
*[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
*[[Cleveland Browns]]
*[[Baltimore Ravens]]
*[[National Football Conference]]
*[[American Football Conference]]

== External links ==
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/bengals/index.html Team site]
*[http://proshop.bengals.com/iStar.asp?a=30 Cincinnati Bengals]

{{NFL Teams}}

[[Category: National Football League]]
[[Category:Ohio]]

Cincinnati Bengals

2009-11-18T04:29:49Z

JeffT: updated roster

[[Image:Cincinnati-Bengals-Logo.gif|right]]
The '''Cincinnati Bengals''' are a [[National Football League]] franchise team based in [[Cincinnati]], [[Ohio]]. They are part of the [[American Football Conference]] (AFC) and play in the AFC North Division.
==Roster==
===Quarterbacks===
* - J.T. O'Sullivan
*9 - [[Carson Palmer]]
*5 - Jordan Palmer

===Running Backs===
*32 - Cedric Benson
*39 - James Johnson
*23 - Chris Perry
*33 - Kenny Watson
*27 - DeDe Dorsey
*?? - [[Larry Johnson]]

===Fullbacks===
*49 - Daniel Coats

===Wide Receivers===
*85 - [[Chad Ocho Cinco]]
*15 - [[Chris Henry]]
*87 - Andre Caldwell
* - [[Laveranues Coles]]
*89 - Jerome Simpson
*83 - Antonio Chatman

===Tight Ends===
*82 - Reggie Kelly
*80 - Nate Lawrie
*48 - Brad St. Louis
*81 - Ben Utecht

===Offensive Tackles===
*73 - Anthony Collins
*76 - Levi Jones
*62 - Nate Livings
*74 - Dennis Roland
*70 - Kirk Barton

===Guards===
*75 - Scott Kooistra
*77 - Andrew Whitworth
*60 - Andrew Crummey
*66 - Evan Mathis
*63 - Bobbie Williams

===Centers===
*64 - Kyle Cook
*65 - Dan Santucci
*53 - Eric Ghiaciuc

===Defensive Ends===
*68 - Jonathan Fanene
*96 - Chris Harrington
*98 - Antwan Odom
*91 Robert Geathers
*50 - Eric Henderson
*92 - Frostee Rucker

===Defensive Tackles===
*95 - Orien Harris
*94 - Domata Peko
*90 - Pat Sims
*99 - Jason Shirley
*97 - John Thornton

===Linebackers===
*52 - Abdul Hodge
*55 - Keith Rivers
*56 - Daryll Blackstock
*93 - Rashd Jeanty
*59 - Brandon Johnson
*57 - Dhani Jones
*50 - Jim Maxwell

===Cornerbacks===
*22 - Johnathan Joseph
*21 - Simeon Castille
*25 - Jamar Fletcher
*29 - Leon Hall
*20 - David Jones
*24 - Geoffrey Pope

===Safeties===
*40 - John Busing
*42 - Chris Crocker
*44 - Mike Doss
*34 - Kyries Hebert
*41 - Chinedum Ndukwe
*28 - Dexter Jackson
*47 - Corey Lynch
*26 - Marvin White

===Kickers===
*17 - [[Shayne Graham]]

===Punters===
*19 - Kyle Larson

==See also==
*[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
*[[Cleveland Browns]]
*[[Baltimore Ravens]]
*[[National Football Conference]]
*[[American Football Conference]]

== External links ==
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/bengals/index.html Team site]
*[http://proshop.bengals.com/iStar.asp?a=30 Cincinnati Bengals]

{{NFL Teams}}

[[Category: National Football League]]
[[Category:Ohio]]

Obamanomics

2009-11-06T22:11:45Z

JeffT: references for Obama's failure

'''Obamanomics''' is a school of economic thought and policy being pushed by the [[Obama Administration]]. With unemployment at 10.2% as of October 2009<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jobs_lost/2009/11/06/282644.html</ref>, it is proving to be a failed system.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Moderates

2009-11-06T20:53:42Z

JeffT: RINOs sometime call themselves "moderates"

The term '''moderate''' is used to describe a political view that is neither consistently [[conservative]] nor [[liberal]]. Often a politician who is an anti-[[conservative]] will describe himself as a "'''moderate'''" as a way of appearing more reasonable to the public. [[RINO]]s will sometimes refer to themselves as "moderate conservatives". The [[liberal media]] will also use the term "'''moderate'''" as a more popular label for themselves and their friends than the label [[liberal]] is, in an attempt to deceive viewers into believing that their beliefs are in line with what "average" Americans believe.

Historically in [[France]], '''moderates''' were a middle-of-the-road political faction or group during the French Revolution. The French National Assembly established a constitutional monarchy and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the [[radicals]] (liberals), moderates (centrists) and [[Conservatives (1700s French Political party)|Conservatives]], similar to those political movements today in the United States.

The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the [[radicals]] (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the Conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

The number of people who consider themselves moderates in the United States today outweighs those who consider themselves liberal or conservative, and that number has remained constant since the middle 1970s.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref>

<references/>

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Medici Family

2009-11-06T20:49:48Z

JeffT: Remove useless stub template on concise article. This ain't wikipedia, folks.

The '''Medici Family''' was a powerful [[Italian]] family from the thirteenth to seventeenth century. The Medicis were members of [[European]] royalty who encouraged the [[Renaissance|Italian Renaissance]]. They acquired great wealth and prominence through [[banking]] and ruthlessness. The Medicis also produced three [[pope|popes]].
[[category:Italian History]]

Talk:Tram

2009-11-06T20:26:46Z

JeffT:

Maybe I'm being too picky, but shouldn't the content of this be moved to Streetcar, and have Tram redirect to that? -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 16:36, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:Why? There's more to the world than America. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:11, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Revisiting this issue, I think something should be done about the PC multiculturalism. The article should be moved to [[Streetcar]]. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:26, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-06T19:55:42Z

JeffT: /* Chapter 6 */ remove antiquated, uneconomical system of measurements, improve conciseness

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
|In the beginning, God created the [[heaven]]s and the [[earth]].
|The Hebrew word '''שמים''' (''shamayim'') means "skies" and is in the dual number.
|-
|2
|And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
|The earth was utterly formless and empty. Darkness obscured the deep. The Breath of God moved upon the oceans.
|The earth is like a blank canvas, awaiting the stroke of the Master Artist. The original [[Hebrew]] repeats the concept of formlessness for emphasis.
|-
|3
|And God said, let there be light: and there was light.
|[[God]] commanded, "Light shall exist!" And light came to exist.
|The rare use of the [[Hebrew]] verb '''היה''' (''hayah''), meaning "he existed," emphasizes that the light did not merely exist but ''came'' to exist at God's command.
|-
|4
|And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
|God approved of the light, because it was good. God distinguished between the light and the darkness.
|
|-
|5
|And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
|God named the light Day, and the darkness Night. And evening and morning came: the first day.
|The Hebrew '''יום''' (''yowm'') means "day." In all its uses in the Bible, it most commonly means the solar day with which we are all familiar, i.e. twenty-four hours. The phrase describing "evening and morning coming to exist" confirms this. By [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom and tradition, the day begins at sundown, not midnight.
|-
|6
|And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
|Then God declared, "A great sheet-like expanse shall come between the waters, and it shall divide waters from waters!"
|
|-
|7
|And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
|God made this expanse, and separated the waters underneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And so it came to be.
|
|-
|8
|And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
|God called this expanse the sky. And evening and morning came: the second day.
|The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of waters. Some [[creation science|creation scientists]] took this to mean a water-vapor canopy that protected the earth before the [[Great Flood]]. The [[cosmology|cosmologist]] [[John Hartnett]] holds that the expanse is not matter, but is in fact the very fabric of [[space]], stretched out on Day Four (see below) to the limits of the known [[universe]].
|-
|9
|And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
|Then God commanded: "The waters under the sky will come together in one place, and dry ground will appear!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|10
|And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
|God named this dry ground [[Earth]], and the collected mass of waters He named Seas. This was good.
|
|-
|11
|And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
|Then God declared, "The earth shall make grass sprout, the plant that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit of its [[baraminology|created kind]], carrying its own seed, to cover the earth!" And so it came to be.
|[[Baraminology]] ([[Hebrew]] '''ברא''' (''bara'') he created and '''מין''' (''min'') a kind, and [[Greek]] '''λογος''' (''logos'') a word) is the attempt to find all the created kinds from which all present [[species]] derive.
|-
|12
|And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|And the earth produced [[grass]], and herbs yielding the seeds of their kinds, and trees yielding fruits (that held their own seeds) of their kinds. God approved it because it was good.
|Broadly speaking, this includes [[grain]]s, [[vegetable]]s, and [[fruit]]s.
|-
|13
|And the evening and the morning were the third day.
|Evening and morning came: the third day.
|
|-
|14
|And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
|Then God commanded: "Lights will come to be in the expanse of the skies, to distinguish between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs, for (planting) seasons, for days, and for years.
|The [[Hebrew]] '''מועד''' (''mow'ed''), translated "season," actually means an appointed time for doing something. The [[Hebrews]] were originally agrarian, as the original names of their months ([[Abib]], [[Sivan]], etc.) indicate.
|-
|15
|And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
|They will also serve for lights in the expanse of the sky to produce light over the earth!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|16
|And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
|God made two particularly intense lights: the more intense to rule the day, and the less-intense to rule the night. He also made the [[star]]s.
|The two intense lights are, of course, the [[sun]] and the [[moon]]. In addition, God made every other object in the sky, including the [[planet]]s, of which the ancients could see five: [[Mercury]], [[Venus]], [[Mars]], [[Jupiter]], and [[Saturn]].
|-
|17
|And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
|God set these in the expanse of the sky to produce light on the earth,
|
|-
|18
|And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
|and to have dominion over the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness. God approved this because it was good.
|
|-
|19
|And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
|Evening and morning came: the fourth day.
|
|-
|20
|And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
|God commanded, "The waters will positively swarm with creatures that move and have life, and birds that fly above the earth in the open sky!"
|The traditional expression "bring forth abundantly" does not do justice to the original Hebrew. Once again Hebrew employs repetition for emphasis.
|-
|21
|And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|So God created gigantic sea creatures, and made the waters teem with every moving creature after its [[Baraminology|kind]], and every winged bird after its [[Baraminology|kind]]. God approved it because it was good.
|The largest of sea creatures included more than the great [[whales]]. They also included several species of marine [[dinosaur]]s, at least two of which (the [[Loch Ness Monster | Loch Ness creature]] and "Predator X", identified in the Bible as "[[Leviathan]]") survived the [[Great Flood]].
|-
|22
|And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
|God blessed them, and commanded them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas! Birds will multiply in the earth!"
|
|-
|23
|And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
|Evening and morning came: the fifth day.
|
|-
|24
|And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
|Now God commanded, "The earth shall produce living creatures of all [[Baraminology|kinds]]: livestock, creeping things, and wild animals of the earth, of all kinds!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|25
|And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|God made all manner of wild animal kinds, and livestock kinds, and every kind of thing that creeps on land. God approved it because it was good.
|
|-
|26
|And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
|Then God declared, "We shall make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and they will subjugate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth!"
|
|-
|27
|So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
|So God created mankind in His image. In the image of God He created mankind; He created them both male and female.
|
|-
|28
|And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
|Then God blessed them, and God told them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth abundantly, and subdue it. You shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and every living thing that moves on the earth!"
|
|-
|29
|And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
|Then God said, "Look! I have provided for you every plant that produces seed on the face of the earth, and every tree that bears fruit that yields seed. These shall be your food.
|Pre-[[Great Flood|Flood]] man was supposed to be [[vegetarian]] and live entirely on [[fruit]]s and [[vegetable]]s. Genesis 9:1-3 supersedes this. But some dietitians, like the inventor of the [[Hallelujah Diet]], insist that vegetarianism reflects God's original and even present intent. Moreover, Rastas and other pro-marijuana advocates have used this verse to argue correctly that marijuana, as a seed-producing plant, should not be legally prohibited.
|-
|30
|And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
|And for every land animal, and every bird of the air, and everything that creeps on the earth, and has life, I have provided every green vegetable for food!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|31
|And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
|God approved of everything He had made. In fact it was absolutely excellent. Evening and morning came: the sixth day.
|The Hebrew '''מאד''' (''meh'od''), when used after an adjective, takes the meaning of that adjective to the highest degree. "Very good" does't quite do it justice.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
|In this way the [[heaven]]s and the [[earth]] were now complete, and everything in them was also complete.
|The [[Hebrew]] phrase '''כל-צבאם''' (''kalah-tsabam''), literally "complete armies," is a idiomatic expression.
|-
|2
|And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
|On the seventh day God finished the Work of Art That He had made, and He took a rest on the seventh day from all His effort that He had made.
|That word for "rest" is '''שבת''' or literally ''shabbat'', from which we get [[Sabbath]].
|-
|3
|And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
|God blessed the seventh day and set it apart from other days. In it He had rested from all His work of creating and making things.
|
|-
|4
|These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
|This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the [[YHWH|LORD]] [[God]] made the earth and the skies.
|The word rendered LORD, here and elsewhere, is '''יהוה''' (''Yahweh'', sometimes rendered ''Yehovah'' in the [[Masoretic Text]]) or [[YHWH]], the Tetragrammaton. The literal meaning is "He exists," sometimes rendered "He is" without a predicate nominative or adjective. Compare this with '''אהוה''' (''Ehweh''), which means ''I'' exist, in Exodus 3:14, the one occasion in which [[God]] gives His direct calling name to anyone.
|-
|5
|And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
|None of the land plants were in the ground yet, nor had any land herb sprouted. The LORD God had not made it rain on the land, and no man was available to work the ground.
|
|-
|6
|But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
|Then a mist went up from the earth, and watered all parts of the ground.
|In [[Hebrew]], the word '''פנים''' (''paniym''), meaning "face," has the same idiomatic usage as the word "face" in English. Note also that the ''pan-'' root is similar to the [[Greek]] ''pan-'' root meaning "all" or "every".
|-
|7
|And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
|Then the LORD God formed a [[human]] being out of the dry powdered soil on the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And so man became a living person.
|The [[Hebrew]] gives this man's name: [[Adam]].
|-
|8
|And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
|Then the LORD God planted the [[Garden of Eden]] toward the east. There He put the man that He had formed.
|
|-
|9
|And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
|From the ground the LORD God caused every tree to grow that is pleasant to look at and good to eat. In the middle of the garden He also planted the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
|The Tree of Life is probably an [[almond]] tree. The Tree of Knowledge may or may not be an [[apple]] tree.
|-
|10
|And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
|A river flowed out of Eden to irrigate the garden. From there it split into four headwaters.
|
|-
|11
|The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
|The first of these is called the Pison. This river surrounds the whole land of Havilah, a land rich in natural resources.
|
|-
|12
|And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
|The resources of that land are valuable; they include gum resin and onyx.
|The stone could also be chrysoprasus, beryl, or malachite.
|-
|13
|And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
|The second river is called the Gihon. This river surrounds the whole land of [[Ethiopia]].
|
|-
|14
|And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
|The third river is called the Hiddekel; this is the river that flows toward the east of [[Assyria]]. The fourth river is the [[Euphrates River]].
|
|-
|15
|And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
|The LORD God took Adam, and put him into the Garden of Eden, to work it and have charge of it.
|
|-
|16
|And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
|The LORD God gave Adam these orders: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to your heart's content,
|The [[Hebrew]] actually repeats the verb "to eat" for emphasis.
|-
|17
|But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
|except that you must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the day that you eat from that tree you shall surely die."
|The Hebrew here repeats the word "die" for emphasis and intensification, not only of the certainty of death but also of its severity. The "death" meant here is separation from God, a thing that Adam probably did not then appreciate.
|-
|18
|And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
|Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for Adam to be alone. I will make him a suitable helper."
|
|-
|19
|And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
|From the ground the LORD God then formed every land animal and every bird of the sky, and brought them to Adam to see how he would name them. Whatever name Adam gave to any living creature, that would be its name.
|It's not clear how this fits into the Genesis one narrative.
|-
|20
|And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
|Adam gave names to all cattle, and all the birds in the sky, and every living creature of the field. But in all that company no suitable helper for Adam could be found.
|
|-
|21
|And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
|Then the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a trance, and he slept. He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
|
|-
|22
|And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
|Out of this rib, that the LORD God had taken from Adam, He made a woman, and brought her to Adam.
|
|-
|23
|And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
|Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be named Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
|For that reason, a man will leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh.
|This is the basis of [[marriage]].
|-
|25
|And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
|The two of them, Adam and his wife, were naked, and were not ashamed.
|Shame would not come into their lives until they made one fatal mistake.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
|Now the serpent was craftier than any other land animal that the [[YHWH|LORD]] [[God]] had made. He asked the woman, "Wait a minute. Did God really say, 'You may not eat from any tree in the garden?'"
|The serpent, that is, [[Satan]], twists God's command into a prohibiton against eating from ''any'' tree, not just one Tree in particular.
|-
|2
|And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
|The woman told the serpent, "We may eat the fruits of the trees of the garden,
|
|-
|3
|But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
|but concerning the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You must not eat this, or even touch it, or else you will die.'"
|Now [[Eve]] distorts God's word by exaggerating, an ever-present danger.
|-
|4
|And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
|The serpent told the woman, "You won't 'surely die.'
|
|-
|5
|For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
|Because God knows that in the day that you eat that fruit, your [[eye]]s will be opened, and you will be like gods yourselves, with knowledge of good and evil."
|It takes a lot more than knowledge of good and evil to be God-like. But Eve did not know that, and so believed a lie.
|-
|6
|And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
|So the woman considered that the tree was good to eat, pleasant to look at, and desirable for the understanding it might convey. So she took some of its fruit, and ate, and also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
|The action of the [[Fall of Man]]...
|-
|7
|And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
|Then both their eyes were opened. Then they knew they were naked, and sewed fig leaves together to make loin-coverings for themselves.
|...and the result.
|-
|8
|And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
|Then they heard the Voice of the LORD God as He walked in the garden in the daily breeze. Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
|
|-
|9
|And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
|Then the LORD God called to Adam, "Where are you?"
|
|-
|10
|And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
|And Adam said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked. So I hid myself."
|Adam offers a lame excuse. So God begins to probe.
|-
|11
|And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
|So He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I ordered you not to eat from?"
|
|-
|12
|And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
|And Adam said, "The woman whom You provided to be with me, gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate."
|An even lamer excuse: blaming someone else.
|-
|13
|And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
|Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What have you done?" And the woman said, "The serpent [[Deceit|deceived]] me, and I ate."
|The woman also blames someone else.
|-
|14
|And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
|Then the LORD God told the serpent, "Because you have done this, you will lie under a curse, more than all livestock or any other land animal. You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life.
|
|-
|15
|And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
|I will incite hatred between you and the woman, and between your children and hers. They will wound you in the head, and you will wound them in the heel.
|This is both a description of how [[snake]]s live today and a prophecy of the Crucifixion, in that [[Jesus Christ]] would have His heels pierced and will hang on a cross driven into a hill in the shape of a skull, i.e. a head.
|-
|16
|Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
|To the woman He said, "I will increase your labor pains to an extreme degree. You will deliver your children, your desires will be directed toward your husband, and he will rule over you."
|Again, Hebrew uses repetition for emphasis and intensification.
|-
|17
|And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
|To Adam He said, "Because you listened to the voice your wife, and ate from the tree that I ordered you not to eat from, the ground will be under a curse on your account. You will have to labor to eat from it all the days of your life.
|
|-
|18
|Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
|It will also produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat land herbs.
|
|-
|19
|In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
|Your face will sweat as you eat bread, until you return to the ground. You were taken out of the ground, you were made from powder, and you will turn back into powder."
|
|-
|20
|And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
|Adam gave his wife a name, [[Eve]], because she was the mother of all living persons.
|
|-
|21
|Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
|Then the LORD God made coats of animal skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
|Without the shedding of blood there can be no salvation. This act is a direct illustration of this principle.
|-
|22
|And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
|Then the LORD God, "Look! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. We cannot now let him stretch out his hand, and also take fruit from the Tree of Life, and eat and live forever!"
|
|-
|23
|Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
|For that reason the LORD God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he had been formed.
|
|-
|24
|So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
|So He drove out the man, and to the east of the Garden of Eden he stationed cherubs, and a flaming sword that turned every which way, to guard the path to the Tree of Life.
|A cherub is a class of [[angel]]. Its exact rank and function are hinted at elsewhere. More to the point: God cannot allow mankind to live forever in a sinful condition.
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
|[[Adam]] had relations with his wife, [[Eve]]. She conceived, and bore [[Cain]], saying, "I have acquired a man-child from the [[YHWH|LORD]]."
|The name ''Cain'' ([[Hebrew]] '''קין''' (''Qayin'') means "possession." The verb translated "acquired" comes from the same Hebrew root.
|-
|2
|And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
|Later she bore another son, his brother [[Abel]]. Abel was a shepherd, and Cain was a farmer.
|Literally, "one working the ground."
|-
|3
|And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
|At the end of many days it happened that Cain brought an offering to the LORD from his harvest.
|
|-
|4
|And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
|Abel, similarly, brought one of the very first lambs from his flock and its fat. The LORD appreciated Abel and his offering,
|Abel brought the best that his work had produced to God,
|-
|5
|But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
|but did not appreciate Cain or his offering. Cain was extremely resentful and crestfallen.
|but Cain probably brought the leftovers. This was not because only animal sacrifice would serve.
|-
|6
|And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
|The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you resentful? Why are you crestfallen?
|
|-
|7
|If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
|If you would put forth a proper effort, don't you think you would be accepted? But if you won't make the effort, then sin lies at your door. Sin desires you, but you must master it."
|
|-
|8
|And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
|Then Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and it happened, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and murdered him.
|
|-
|9
|And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
|Then the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And he said, "I don't know. Am I supposed to be responsible for my brother?"
|
|-
|10
|And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
|And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
|
|-
|11
|And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
|Now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand.
|
|-
|12
|When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
|Whenever you try to work the ground, it will never again yield its strength to you. You will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth."
|
|-
|13
|And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
|Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can take!
|
|-
|14
|Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
|Look! You have driven me this day from the face of the land, and I will be hidden from Your face! I will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth, and anyone who finds me will murder me!"
|
|-
|15
|And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
|Then the LORD told him, "For that, if anyone murders Cain, he will pay a seven-fold penalty." Then the LORD placed a special mark on Cain, to make sure that anyone finding him would know not to kill him.
|
|-
|16
|And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
|Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and lived in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden.
|The root meaning of the name "Nod" means "wandering." This name never appears again; it is a [[hapax legomenon]].
|-
|17
|And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
|There Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore him a son named [[Enoch (Cainite)|Enoch]]. Cain built a city, and named that city after his son Enoch.
|The name ''Enoch'' means "dedicated."
|-
|18
|And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
|Enoch's son was Irad, and Irad's son was Mehujael, and Mehujael's son was Methusael, and Methusael's son was [[Lamech the Murderer|Lamech]].
|The names of these further descendants of Cain meant "fleet", "smitten by God," "who is of God," and "powerful."
|-
|19
|And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
|Lamech married two wives, named [[Adah]] and [[Zillah]].
|The names of Lamech's wives mean "ornament" and "shade."
|-
|20
|And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
|Adah bore [[Jabal]], the progenitor of those who live in tents, and those who keep livestock.
|''Jabal'' means "stream of water."
|-
|21
|And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
|His brother's name was [[Jubal]], the progenitor of all who handle the [[harp]] and the [[organ]].
|''Jubal'' means "stream." Jubal invented [[music]]al instruments.
|-
|22
|And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
|Zillah bore [[Tubal-cain]], an instructor of every worker of [[bronze]] and [[iron]]. His sister was Naamah.
|''Tubal-cain'' means "You will be brought from Cain." ''Naamah'' means "loveliness."
|-
|23
|And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
|Lamech said to his wives, Adah, and Zillah, "Listen to me, you wives of Lamech, listen to what I'm telling you. I have killed a man who wounded me, and a young man who hurt me.
|
|-
|24
|If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
|If Cain enjoys seven-fold protection, then Lamech deserves seventy-seven-fold protection!"
|
|-
|25
|And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
|Adam had relations again with his wife, and she bore a son, and named him [[Seth]]. She said, "Because [[God]] has appointed me another son in the place of Abel, whom Cain murdered."
|The name ''Seth'' means "appointed." The play on words is obvious in the original Hebrew.
|-
|26
|And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
|Seth also had a son, named [[Enos]]. At that time men began to call on the Name of the LORD.
|''Enosh'' is another word for "man."
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
|This is the book of the genealogy of [[Adam]]. In the day that [[God]] created man, He made him in God's likeness.
|
|-
|2
|Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
|He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called them "mankind," in the day that they were created.
|''Adam'' means "man."
|-
|3
|And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
|When Adam had lived for 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and named him [[Seth]].
|That is, "appointed."
|-
|4
|And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
|And after Adam had become the father of Seth he lived 800 more years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|5
|And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
|Altogether Adam lived for 930 years, and he died.
|
|-
|6
|And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
|When Seth had lived 105 years, he had a son named [[Enos]].
|That is, "man" again.
|-
|7
|And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Seth had Enos, he lived 807 more years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|8
|And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
|Altogether Seth lived for 912 years, and he died.
|
|-
|9
|And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
|When Enos was 90 years old, he had a son named [[Cainan]].
|That is, "possession."
|-
|10
|And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Enos had Cainan, he lived for 815 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|11
|And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
|Altogether Enos lived for 905 years, and he died.
|
|-
|12
|And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
|When Cainan had lived for 70 years, he had a son named [[Mahalaleel]].
|That is, "Praise of God."
|-
|13
|And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Cainan had Mahaleel, he lived for 840 years, and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|14
|And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
|Altogether Cainan lived for 910 years, and he died.
|
|-
|15
|And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
|Mahaleel lived for 65 years, and had a son named [[Jared]].
|That is, "descent," which could mean "coming down."
|-
|16
|And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Mahaleel had Jared, he lived for 830 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|17
|And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
|Altogether Mahaleel lived for 895 years, and he died.
|
|-
|18
|And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
|When Jared had lived 162 years, he had a son named [[Enoch]].
|That is, "dedicated."
|-
|19
|And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Jared had Enoch, he lived for 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|20
|And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
|Altogether Jared lived for 962 years, and he died.
|
|-
|21
|And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
|When Enoch had lived for 65 years, he had a son named [[Methuselah]].
|That is, "man of the dart."
|-
|22
|And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Enoch had Methuselah, he lived for 300 more years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|23
|And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
|Altogether Enoch lived for 365 years.
|
|-
|24
|And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
|Enoch walked with God. Then suddenly he didn't exist anymore, because God took him away.
|Reason: God directly translated him, as He would do for [[Elijah]] several thousand years later.
|-
|25
|And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
|When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he had a son named [[Lamech]].
|That is, "powerful."
|-
|26
|And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Methuselah had Lamech, he lived another 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|27
|And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
|Altogether Methuselah lived for 969 years, and he died.
|Methuselah lived longer than any other man who ever lived, and died in the year of the [[Great Flood]].
|-
|28
|And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
|When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son named [[Noah]]
|That is, "comfort" or "rest."
|-
|29
|And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
|Lamech named his son Noah, and said, "My son will comfort us on account of our labor and work of our hands, on account of the ground that the LORD has cursed."
|
|-
|30
|And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Lamech had Noah, he lived for another 595 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|31
|And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
|Altogether, Lamech lived for 777 years, and he died.
|Lamech died five years before the [[Great Flood]].
|-
|32
|And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
|When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons named [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]].
|That is, "name", "hot", and "opened." These sons are not named in the actual birth order: Japheth was likely born first, then Shem, and finally Ham.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
|Eventually, when men began to populate the land, and many young women were born,
|The [[Hebrew]] starts with the imperfect of "to exist," which is idiomatic for "eventually" here.
|-
|2
|That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
|the sons of God regarded these young women as beautiful, and took as many of them as they chose as brides.
|Some commentators ([[Harold Camping]] among them) say that these "sons of God" were simply members of [[Seth]]'s line who married outside the true faith. But [[Jude]] (in the [[New Testament]]) says almost directly that these "sons of God" were fallen [[angels]] who thus produced a race of angel-human hybrids.
|-
|3
|And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
|The LORD said, "My spirit shall not continue this quarrel with man forever, because indeed he is sinful flesh. I give him one hundred twenty years more."
|[[God]] issues this warning 120 years before the [[Great Flood]]; see also [[Noah's Ark]].
|-
|4
|There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
|The Fallen Ones were abroad in the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God had relations with young human women, and these women bore children to them. These hybrids became strong men in ancient times, men of renown.
|[[Moses]] might be talking about the Anakim, giant-sized inhabitants of [[Canaan (land)|Canaan]] whom his twelve spies reported seeing. Whether [[Hercules]] was one of them is impossible to determine.
|-
|5
|And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
|[[God]] realized that the evil that man did in the earth was great, and that everything that he thought and imagined in his heart, every single day, was utterly evil.
|
|-
|6
|And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
|And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and He was heartsick.
|
|-
|7
|And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
|The LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, off the face of the land—mankind and land animals and insect life and birds of the air—because I regret that I have made them."
|Notice that God does not say here that he will destroy all marine life, and also that the word He actually uses means not merely to kill but to rub out, as if it never existed. Which is what the [[Great Flood]] did, to the extent that modern-day scoffers insist that it never occurred and cite a "lack of evidence," not realizing how complete a change the Great Flood made to the land.
|-
|8
|But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
|But [[Noah]] found favor in the sight of the LORD.
|
|-
|9
|These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
|This is Noah's story: Noah was a just man, and the most wholesom man of his time, and Noah walked with God.
|The two words translated "generations" in the [[KJV]] are radically different in meaning.
|-
|10
|And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
|Noah was the father of three sons: [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]].
|That is, "name", "hot," and "opened." Yet the proper birth order is Japheth first, then Shem, then Ham.
|-
|11
|The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
|The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was an utterly violent world.
|
|-
|12
|And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
|Wherever God looked on the earth, He saw corruption, because all men had become thoroughly evil and corrupt.
|All men, that is, except for Noah and his family.
|-
|13
|And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
|So God told Noah, "The end of all mankind has come before Me, because the earth is full of violence on their account. So look: I am going to destroy them along with the earth.
|
|-
|14
|Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
|Build for yourself an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] of gopher wood. Build nests in the ark, and coat it with pitch inside and out.
|The [[Hebrew]] '''תבה''' (''tebah'') appears only here and in the story of [[Moses]] in the bulrushes. It probably means simply "lifeboat." The term '''עצי-גפר''' (''etsi-gopher'') never appears again in the [[Bible]] or any other literature (thus making it a [[hapax legomenon]]), and could mean a lost species of tree, an [[Antediluvian Civilizatoin|antediluvian]] composite, or a lost art of producing wood for shipbuilding. "Pitch" usually means "ransom" and its use here prefigures the ransom that [[Jesus Christ]] paid for mankind.<ref name=Lovett>Lovett T, ''Noah's Ark: Thinking Outside the Box'', Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.</ref>
|-
|15
|And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
|Build it this way:
*Length: 515 feet.
*Beam: 86 feet.
*Height: 52 feet.
|This is probably the long [[cubit]], at least 20 US Customary [[inch]]es long. These dimensions probably translate to slightly more than 150 by 25 by 15 [[SI]] [[meter]]s.<ref name=Lovett/>
|-
|16
|A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
|Set a skylight hatch in its top deck, with its hatch combing rising one cubit above deck level. Set the door of the ark in its side. Build it with lower, second, and third deck levels.
|The Hebrew text does not specify a word for "deck levels," but merely says, "lower, second, and third." This usage suggests that the door was at the second deck level, perhaps midway up from the bottom.<ref name=Lovett/>
|-
|17
|And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
|Look: I Myself will bring a [[Great Flood|Flood]] of waters on the earth, to destroy all men and animals having the breath of life in them from under the sky. Everything in the earth will die.
|
|-
|18
|But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
|But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark, you, and your sons, and your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
|
|-
|19
|And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
|And out of every living thing among all animals, you are to bring two of every sort into the ark, a male and a female, to keep them alive with you.
|
|-
|20
|Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
|Two of every [[Baraminology|created kind]] of bird, and every kind of livestock, and of every ground creeper, will come to you so that you can keep them alive.
|
|-
|21
|And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
|You will take with you samples of every kind of foodstuff, and gather it for yourself. This will be your food, and theirs."
|
|-
|22
|Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
|So Noah did all these things, exactly as God ordered him.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
|Then the [[YHWH|LORD]] said to [[Noah]], "Come, you and all your household, into the [[Noah's Ark|ark]]. You're the only just person I've seen in this generation of men.
|
|-
|2
|Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
|Take seven specimens of every clean animal, male and female, and take two specimens of unclean animals, male and female.
|
|-
|3
|Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
|Also take seven specimens of every [[bird]], male and female, in order to raise live offspring to repopulate the earth afterward.
|
|-
|4
|For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
|Seven days from now, I will make it rain on the [[earth]] for 40 days and nights. and I will wipe out every living thing I have made from the face of the earth."
|
|-
|5
|And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
|Noah followed all the LORD's orders.
|
|-
|6
|And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
|Noah was 600 years old when the [[Great Flood]] came on the earth.
|
|-
|7
|And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
|Noah boarded the ark, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives with him, to escape the Flood waters.
|
|-
|8
|Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
|Of clean animals, and unclean animals, and birds, and of every living thing that creeps on the ground,
|including [[insect]]s and [[worm]]s
|-
|9
|There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
|two and two went to [[Noah]] aboard the ark, male and female, as God had ordered Noah.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
|After the seven days had passed, the waters of the Flood came upon the earth.
|
|-
|11
|In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
|In the 600th year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day the deep subcrustal springs were broken open, and the windows of the sky were thrown open.
|The date is 17 [[Bul]] 1656 [[Anno Mundi|AM]], corresponding to October 23, 2348 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar.

That last idiomatic phrase reflects the ancient Hebrew view of the sky as a solid object; see Genesis 1:6-8. It refers actually to the torrential rain, which came not only from rainclouds but also fell back to earth after gushing out of the subcrustal springs. See also [[Hydroplate Theory]] and entries for the [[Galilean moons]] of [[Jupiter]], three of which are supposed to have subcrustal oceans.
|-
|12
|And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
|Τhe rain fell on the earth for 40 days and nights.
|
|-
|13
|In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
|On that very day [[Noah]], and [[Shem]], and [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]], Noah's sons, and Noah's wife, and the tree wives of his sons with them, boarded the ark.
|
|-
|14
|They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
|With them went specimens of every [[Baraminology|created kind]] of land animal, including livestock, ground creepers, and birds,
|
|-
|15
|And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
|two specimens of each kind of air-breathing animal,
|
|-
|16
|And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
|male and female, as God had ordered Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
|This last phrase could indicate a miraculous action, but we have no reason to suppose that Noah did not build a properly watertight door.<ref name=Lovett/>
|-
|17
|And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
|The [[Great Flood|Flood]] lasted for forty days, during which time the waters rose steadily, and floated the ark and lifted it up above the earth.
|
|-
|18
|And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
|The waters could not be stopped, and rose to great depths on the earth, and the ark rode the surface of the waters.
|
|-
|19
|And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
|The waters were exceedingly powerful and deep, and all the high hills under the entire sky were covered.
|
|-
|20
|Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
|The waters kept rising for another fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered.
|How high those mountains were before the Flood is impossible to say. Many of the modern mountain ranges formed in the process of the Flood, as the subterranean waters, escaping through the Mid-Oceanic Ridge system, shoved the continents into one another or off to one side, causing them to buckle and form mountains by faulting.
|-
|21
|And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
|Everything that moved on the earth died, including birds, livestock, wild animals, ground creepers, and every man.
|
|-
|22
|All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
|Every [[animal]] that went about on dry land and breathed air, died.
|The great [[whales]] are air breathers, but they are also marine animals and were thus able to survive.
|-
|23
|And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
|Every living creature was wiped off the face of the ground, including mankind, livestock, ground creepers, and birds in the sky. They were wiped out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained alive.
|
|-
|24
|And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
|The waters covered over the earth for 150 days.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
|Now [[God]] still remembered [[Noah]], and every living creature, and all the livestock that was with him in the [[Noah's Ark|ark]]. So God sent a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters receded.
|
|-
|2
|The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
|The subcrustal springs and the windows of the sky were stopped, and the rain from the sky was restrained.
|
|-
|3
|And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
|The waters continued to recede from the earth. At the end of 150 days the waters had drained away.
|
|-
|4
|And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
|The ark ran aground on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, in the mountains of Ararat.
|The date is 17 [[Abib]] 1656 [[Anno Mundi|AM]], or April 18, 2347 BC (proleptic Gregorian).

The [[Hebrew]] '''אררט''' (''ararat'') is the name of a mountain range in eastern [[Armenia]], not necessarily including the "[[Mount Ararat]]" in [[Turkey (country)|Turkey]].
|-
|5
|And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
|The waters continued to decrease until the tenth month, so that on the first day of the tenth month, the mountaintops became visible.
|1 Tammuz 1656 AM, or 30 June 2347 BC (proleptic Gregorian).
|-
|6
|And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
|Eventually, forty days later, [[Noah]] opened the skylight hatch of the ark that he had built.
|
|-
|7
|And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
|He sent out a [[raven]], and the raven flew every which way until the waters were dried up from the earth.
|
|-
|8
|Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
|Then he sent out a [[dove]], to see whether the waters had receded from the ground.
|
|-
|9
|But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
|The dove found no place to alight, so it few back to him into the ark, because the waters still covered all the ground. Noah held out his hand, took the dove, and pulled it in to him into the ark.
|
|-
|10
|And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
|He waited for seven more days, and sent the dove out again from the ark.
|
|-
|11
|And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
|The dove came back to him that evening, but, to Noah's delighted surprise, it had an [[olive]] leaf plucked off in its beak. So Noah knew that the waters had gone down significantly.
|
|-
|12
|And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
|He waited seven days more, and sent the dove out, and this time the dove never came back.
|
|-
|13
|And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
|Eventually, in the 601st year of Noah's life, in the first day of the first month, the waters were dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked out, and saw that the ground was now dry.
|
|-
|14
|And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
|On the twenty-seventh day of the second month, the earth was completely dry.
|27 Bul 1657 AM, or 21 November 2347 BC (proleptic Gregorian). In this verse, the Hebrew uses a different word for "dry," one conveying a higher degree of dryness.
|-
|15
|And God spake unto Noah, saying,
|Now God spoke to Noah, and said,
|
|-
|16
|Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
|"Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you.
|
|-
|17
|Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
|Bring out with you every living thing that is with you, of all kinds of animals, birds, livestock, and ground creepers, so that they may breed profusely in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."
|
|-
|18
|And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:
|And Noah went out, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives.
|
|-
|19
|Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
|Every land animal, every ground creeper, and every bird, after its created kind, left the ark.
|
|-
|20
|And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
|Then Noah built an altar to the LORD. He took specimens of every clean land animal, and every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
|The [[Hebrew]] '''עלה''' (''olah'') describes this specific kind of offering. The word also connotes a climbing of stairs and reflects the need to "step up" to the altar. This is also why Noah took seven clean-animal specimens of each kind, rather than the usual two.
|-
|21
|And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
|The LORD smelled a soothing odor, and the LORD said in His heart, "Never again will I curse the ground on account of mankind, because the imagination of man's heart is evil starting in his childhood. Nor will I ever again kill every living thing, as I have done.
|
|-
|22
|While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
|While the earth remains, planting time and harvest time, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not stop."
|
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

* [[Genesis 9-16 (Translated)]]

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]