Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:DeanS

2009-06-19T16:53:56Z

JessicaT: Undo revision 676496 by JRichmond (Talk)

Archive:
[[/1|01]]
[[/2|02]]
[[/3|03]]

== Just to make sure ==

Hey DeanS! So just to make sure you know - the delete proposal that I put on the talk page you deleted was mean for the main page ([[Template:Infobox Secondary school]]) - I couldn't put it on the main page itself because it's protected.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:10, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
:Done. Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:49, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for unblocking me, DeanS, and I'm sorry for going to another administrator, but I could not find your email address on your profile page--I'm new and didn't know that it's on the left side of the screen or that Conservapedia has that addition. Happy trails, Avalerion.
:No problem. I had previously contacted other administrators about your account and we resolved the issue. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:35, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
::I edited and provided the links, if you would like to check it out and make sure that I obeyed the rules of Conservapedia. Avalerion.

I need your help. I have an administrator saying that "truth" is anti-American when it speaks of the battles between the "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists". How do I alert other administrators to have them settle the dispute? [[User:Avalerion|Avalerion]]
:::Avalerion is not interested in truth--he wants to demean and delegitimitze the US Constitution and the US government, and ridicule and attack the founding fathers as well. He needs "help" all right. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:43, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
::::First off, I am not a 'he'. Second, I did not delegitimize the Consitution. Though it had illegal means of being made and adopted, it was finally ratified by all, even though it was established before the last states ratified it. Thirdly, I did not ridicule the founding fathers. Stop lying and being rude! You're supposed to be an administrator, being an example of how others should act, and instead you act like a name-calling child. [[User:Avalerion|Avalerion]]

It was my impression she was only recently aware of the "Constitution Conspiracy" claptrap. As she was adding references, but not changing the articles, I don't know if Avalerion was seeking a fight, or just reacting strongly as many do when stumbling across the nut cases who claim all of the Founding Fathers were engaged in some fantastic plot, no doubt directed by the Free Mason's or quite possibly the Illuminati! I asked Dean to reconsider the original blocking, RJ, based on nothing more than my belief they were not sinister. If you feel otherwise, please let me know, via email, and feel free to block the user. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:01, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:After seeing the commotion caused by Avalerion, I have reinstated the block. I didn't like her edits in the first place, and her recent comments to RJJensen are not appropriate. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:06, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
::I agree with DeanS. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:10, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::here's the source she was using and citing in her edits, [http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north445.html "The Most Successful Fraud in American History" by Gary North]. It's pretty nasty stuff--enought to make me gag. for example:
::::''the heirs of the victims then consent to the plans of the heirs of the perpetrators to extend the original fraud....I offer as evidence the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:23, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for blocking that vandal just now!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:You're welcome. Thanks for doing the reverts; that was my clue he needed to be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:48, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==Question==
Hey Dean, do you think tht it would be logical to run a project to clean up the userpages of all of the infinitely blocked users? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:23, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:If you mark them with speedy delete tags, I will delete them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

== Patricia ==

You have my support and prayers my dear friend. --[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:43, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:Thank you Joaquín. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown

2009-04-30T18:26:30Z

JessicaT: Removed liberal name-calling and xenophobic reason which is against Conservapedia policy.

*Vandalism
** Vandalism of article
** Parody
*Sock Puppetry
** Abusing multiple accounts
** Sock of blocked user/Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s)
** Using anonymous proxy
*Editing Problems
** Insertion of profane or vulgar language
** Insertion of links to unauthorized or profane websites
** Trolling
** Inappropriate edit to Obama article
** Negative personal comments directed at others
** Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments
** Insistence on last-wordism
** POV editing: Removal of valid content and/or Adding material without citation
** *
*Administration problems
** Violation of 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk
** Violation of Commandments and/or CP Guidelines
** Entering into disputes not involving editor (MYOB)
** Contradicting Administrator, interfering with Admin Instruction
*Account Problems
** Your user name is inappropriate, please choose another.
** Inappropriate or vulgar name. Bye.
** Name is too similar to another editor's name. Please choose another.
** Member of a website which engages in or encourages vandalism and/or parody. Bye.
** Duplicate account, other than deceit.
*Cyber-Harrassment / Terrorism
** User removed from the site after engaging in harassment of members
*Abuse of privileges
** Re-block IP/ranges unblocked by traitor
*Retired
** Unused account with no edits after registration/no editing for several months (removed without prejudice)
** Retired under voluntary circumstances; Admins will reactivate upon request

Agnosticism

2009-04-30T17:29:03Z

JessicaT: Reverted edits by Redwhiteandyou (Talk) to last version by Luminite2

[[Image:65375.jpg|thumb|David Hume]]
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of God, and in stronger forms, the assertion that God's existence is not capable of being known (unknowable).

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore he is not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''. However, the stronger form does have a truth value, and therefore can be right or wrong. Either the proponent of stronger agnosticism is correct, that the existence of God is not capable of being known, or he is incorrect.

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of Darwinism.</ref> from the Greek roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref> [[David Hume]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] were famous agnostics. Two present famous agnostics are [[Larry King]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the United States, 32% of people in France and 35% of people in Great Britain self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref>
{{Clear}}

==Atheism and agnosticism==

Some agnostics bristle at the term ''atheist''. They say they aren't atheists, because they don't "believe that God does not exist" but rather "neither believe nor disbelieve".

Agnostics differ from regular [[Atheism|atheists]] in that they do not deny God's existence.

Many religious believers make no distinction among non-believers. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is anyone who doesn't believe in God.

Among those who have not decided whether to believe in God, or to disbelieve in Him, there are two main groups:
#Those who simply haven't made a decision
#Those who declare no rational decision is possible, on the grounds that the existence of God is not knowable.

[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness==
[[Per capita]] atheists and agnostics in the [[United States]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists]].

== See also ==

*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

==External links==
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/agnostic.html Origin of the word 'agnostic']
*[http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm Famous Atheists, Freethinkers, Diests and Agnostics]
*[http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page Celebrity Atheist List]
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-there-a-god Opposing Views: Is There a God?]

==References==

<References/>

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown

2009-04-30T16:48:28Z

JessicaT: Remove name-calling, also we do not block for ideological reasons, nor on a whim. and traitor?

*Vandalism
** Vandalism of articles
** Parody
*Sock Puppetry
** Abusing multiple accounts
** Sock of blocked user/Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s)
** Using anonymous proxy
*Editing Problems
** Insertion of profane or vulgar language
** Insertion of links to unauthorized or profane websites
** Trolling
** Inappropriate edit to Obama article
** Negative personal comments directed at others
** Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments
** Insistence on last-wordism
** POV editing: Removal of valid content and/or Adding material without citation
*Administration problems
** Violation of 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk
** Violation of Commandments and/or CP Guidelines
** Entering into disputes not involving editor (MYOB)
** Contradicting Administrator, interfering with Admin Instruction
*Account Problems
** Your user name is inappropriate, please choose another.
** Inappropriate or vulgar name.
** Name is too similar to another editor's name. Please choose another.
** Member of a website which engages in or encourages vandalism and/or parody.
** Duplicate account, other than deceit.
*Cyber-Harassment
** User removed from the site after engaging in harassment of members
*Abuse of privileges
** Re-block IP/ranges unblocked without authority
*Retired
** Unused account with no edits after registration/no editing for several months (removed without prejudice)
** Retired under voluntary circumstances; Admins will reactivate upon request

Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican

2009-04-29T07:38:27Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Second Vatican Council]]

DOT

2009-04-29T07:38:13Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Transportation]]

Department of state

2009-04-29T07:37:57Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of State]]

Homeland-security

2009-04-29T07:37:03Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Homeland Security]]

State Department

2009-04-29T07:36:57Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of State]]

U.S. State Department

2009-04-29T07:36:53Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of State]]

U.S. Department of State

2009-04-29T07:36:46Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of State]]

Health and Human Service Department

2009-04-29T07:34:53Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Health and Human Services]]

HHS

2009-04-29T07:34:47Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Health and Human Services]]

U.S. Department of Defense

2009-04-29T07:34:40Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Defense]]

U.S. Defense Department

2009-04-29T07:33:44Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[United States Department of Defense]]

File:Miyazaki Shrine Grand Festival in 2008 Gagaku.jpg

2009-04-28T14:00:10Z

JessicaT: Protected "File:Miyazaki Shrine Grand Festival in 2008 Gagaku.jpg": Image protection policy ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miyazaki_Shrine_Grand_Festival_in_2008_Gagaku.jpg
[[File:Public_domain_sign.png|50px]] Public domain image.

[[category:Japan]]

File:Miyazaki Shrine Grand Festival in 2008 Gagaku.jpg

2009-04-28T13:59:25Z

JessicaT: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miyazaki_Shrine_Grand_Festival_in_2008_Gagaku.jpg 50px Public domain image. category:Japan

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miyazaki_Shrine_Grand_Festival_in_2008_Gagaku.jpg
[[File:Public_domain_sign.png|50px]] Public domain image.

[[category:Japan]]

Japanese dance

2009-04-28T13:57:37Z

JessicaT: /* Origins */ wikify

{{Japanese characters}}
The true origins of '''Japanese Dance''' are lost in the mists of time, although the [[Nihon Shoki]] (日本書紀 "The Chronicles of Japan"), which chronicles the earliest legends of [[Japan]], contains the myth of one Amenouzume no Mikoto, who danced in front of the ''ama no iwato'' (天の岩戸 "The Gate of the Celestial Rock Cave"), in order to open the entrance and free Amaterasu Ohmikami, who had concealed herself inside.

==Origins==

Japanese dance, as we know it today, is an amalgamation of five original, separate dance forms. Foremost amongst these is the ''kagura'' (神楽), the ritualistic dancing and music associated with the [[Shinto]] faith, which still forms the basis of [[Shrine]] festivals (祭り ''matsuri'') today.

The earliest imported dance was a form of masked dance-drama called ''[[gagaku]]'', (雅楽 "Old Japanese court music"), which was bought to [[Japan]] from [[Korea]] in 612 A.D. This was later complimented by the addition of ''bugaku'' (舞楽, "court dancing"), which came into the country from China during the 8th century. These formed the basis of the entertainment of the Imperial court and the nobility. Around the same time the ''dengaku'' (田楽 lit. "field dancing") and ''sarugaku'' (猿楽 lit. "monkey dancing") came into vogue as a form of entertainment amongst the Japanese farmer class. The former was derived from a fertility rite, normally performed in the fields before sowing the new crop and the latter was a circus-like performance, also imported from China.

From these various styles, the uniquely Japanese [[Noh theater]] (能楽堂 ''nōgakudou''), with its highly formalised and stylistic moves, came into existence during the 14th century. In turn Noh, which was seen as entertainment for the elite, exerted its own influence on ''[[Kabuki]]'' (歌舞伎) dancing, which became more popular with the growth of the merchant classes during the Edo Period.

==Kabuki==

The current incarnation of this form of Japanese dancing is the direct descendant of Iizumo Okuni's ''Nenbutsu Odori'' (念仏踊り "A dance for Buddha"). This dance differed to Noh, in that is was more free-flowing and less stylised than Noh, having its roots in the ethnic ''dengaku'' and ''sarugaku'' dancing. The dances of Izumo Okuni on the banks of Ōsaka's rivers, is seen as the start of what is known today as Kabuki.

Kabuki started as simple dance routines (踊り ''odori''), but later began to incorporate elements of performance and acting, especially once women were banned from taking part in kabuki performances (the Edo Period Shōgunate were concerned that they might be immoral). Regardless of this suppression, kabuki passed down from generation to generation, with gradual changes in style over the years. Today, the ''shosagoto'' (所作事 "dance drama") pantomime dances incorporated in kabuki plays are a throwback to the art form's origins and reflect kabuki's love of gaudiness and spectacle.

==Bon Odori==

''Bon odori'' (盆踊り "festival dances") are regional folk dances, closely linked to Buddhist festivals, especially ''obon'' (お盆 "the festival of the dead") which honours one's ancestors, as well as local historical events. In many ways the dances, which all differ from region to region, resemble the Western Maypole dances, in that particpants will dance in a circular motion around a central "tower" or "scaffold" (櫓 ''yagura'').

==Present Day==

The stylised posturing within Japanese dancing, combined with the vocalization alongside traditional Japanese music and the stage presentation have all been carefully preserved over the years. Continued interest in both Noh and Kabuki is ensuring that schools dedicated to teaching are still going strong, each one concentrating their efforts on continuing both the legacy and evolution of Japanese dancing as an art form.

''Nihon Buyo'' (日本舞踊, "classical Japanese dance"), is a new genre of Japanese theater closely related to Kabuki. They are essentially kabuki dances adapted for their own, separate stage performance, rather than as part of a larger story. The performers wear elaborate kimono and traditional hairstyles and makeup similar to those of the [[geisha]] of kabuki's early days, who were also accomplished musicians, storytellers, and dancers in their own right.

''Shinbuyo'' (心舞踊 lit. "dancing from the heart") was a further development of kabuki. Pioneered during the late 1950s and ‘60s by Fujikage Shizue, it provides ordinary people with the opportunity to perform kabuki dance as an independent art form and is especially popular among women.

''Sūpā kabuki'' (スーパー歌舞伎 "Super Kabuki") is another new innovation within Japanese dance culture, which combines the traditional elements of Kabuki, with modern synthesizer music, innovative lighting and modern stories.

==Also See==

* [[Dance]]
* [[Bunraku]]
* [[Kabuki]]
* [[Noh theater]]

==Bibliography==

* Nojima Jusaburō; Kabuki Jōruri Gedai Yomikata Jiten (歌舞伎浄瑠璃外題読み方事典) Reading Encyclopaedia of Kabuki); Nichigai Associates; 1990
* Fukuchi Yoshihiko; Kabuki Nyūmon (歌舞伎入門 An Introduction to Kabuki); Fujingahōsha; 1995
* Zarina, X; Classic Dances of the Orient; Crown; New York; 1967
* Benito Orolani; The Japanese Theatre: From Shamanistic Ritual to Contemporary Pluralism; Princeton University Press; 1990

[[category:Japanese culture]][[category:Dancing]][[category:Art]]

User talk:RVanDerMerwe

2009-04-28T13:48:01Z

JessicaT:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:38, 28 April 2009 (EDT)}}
from South Africa by any chance? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:38, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

::Hello! Yes I am, Rudolph Van Der Merwe from Cape Town, but currently living in Namibia. Are you yourself Pakistani?-[[User:RVanDerMerwe|RVanDerMerwe]]
:::Lol, no. I am Japanese by birth, but currently live in Johannesburg. Welcome aboard. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:48, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

User talk:RVanDerMerwe

2009-04-28T13:38:43Z

JessicaT: Created page with '{{Welcome|sig=~~~~}} from South Africa by any chance? --~~~~'

User talk:Rrussell

2009-04-28T10:19:15Z

JessicaT: Created page with '{{Welcome|sig=~~~~}}'

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 06:19, 28 April 2009 (EDT)}}

Second aorist

2009-04-28T06:32:31Z

JessicaT: formatting, wikify, cat

All '''second aorist''' have somewhat different stems from the present tense as opposed to the same stem as in the first [[aorist]]. This makes the slightly irregular. They can either be formed by altering the [[verb]] stem, augmenting the first stem, or by adding secondary endings to the verb stems They however are not translated different than the first aorist.

Second aorist verbs are unique in that they have no tense formative but they still contain an [[augment]], as do all aorist verbs.

This is not to be confused with second aorist [[participle]]s, which do have a tense formative tense formative and an augment. The second aorist participle is especially difficult for Greek students because the active and middle forms have the same [[morpheme]] and tense formative as the present.

<ref>http://www.drshirley.org/greek/grammar/g_verb-2AIAb.pdf</ref>
<ref>http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/grk101/linked_pages/aorist2.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/davis/page76.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/davis/page100.html</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Greek Language]]

Liquid verbs

2009-04-28T06:32:15Z

JessicaT: formatting, wikify, cat

'''Liquid verbs''' in [[Bible|Biblical]] [[Greek]] are just like [[regular verb]]s except they have a different tense formative. They can be easily recognized because the last letter of the verbal stem ends in the Greek letters "lambda", "rho", "mu", and "nu". For future tense the tense formative of liquid verbs is "epsilon-sigma" while in aorist it is an "alpha".

Liquid verbs that occur 50 times or more in the Greek New Testament are: airo, apothnasko, apokrinomai, apokteino, apostello, ballo, egeiro, eimi, ekballo, krino, lego, mello, meno, pino, fero, and xairo respectively.

<ref>Basics of Biblical Greek. Mounce D., William. Zondervan. Grand Rapids Michigan. 2003</ref>
<ref>http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2007-April/042798.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.rpeurifoy.com/fuller/2nd_qtr_handouts/NT%20Grk%20Ch%2023%20-%20%20Liquid%20Verbs%20Revisited.pdf</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Greek Language]]

Category:Greek Language

2009-04-28T06:29:57Z

JessicaT: Created page with 'category:Languages'

[[category:Languages]]

Imperative (Greek)

2009-04-28T06:26:51Z

JessicaT: formatting, cat, wikify

The '''imperative mood''' in [[Greek]] gives a command. It only occurs in the second and third persona and likewise only occurs in the present and [[aorist]] tenses.

They can be differentiated from other verbs because they carry a special [[morpheme]]. Another thing to note about imperative verbs is that the [[second aorist]] has a different tense stem than the present.<ref>http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/marksj/summergreek/Gk-studyguides/greek_commands.pdf</ref>
<ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gmood.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.mythfolklore.net/bibgreek/croy/verbs/182.htm</ref>
<ref>Basics of Biblical Greek. Mounce, William, D.,Zondervan.GrandRapids Michigan. 2003.</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Greek Language]]

Second Aorist

2009-04-28T06:26:18Z

JessicaT: moved Second Aorist to Second aorist: naming convention

#REDIRECT [[Second aorist]]

Second aorist

2009-04-28T06:26:18Z

JessicaT: moved Second Aorist to Second aorist: naming convention

All Second aorist have some-what different stems from the present tense as opposed to the same stem as in the first aorist. This makes the slightly irregular. They can either be formed by altering the verb stem, augmenting he first stem, or by adding secondary endings to the verb stems They however are not translated different than the first aorist..

Second aorist Verbs are unique in that they have no tense formative but they still contain an augment as do all aorist verbs.
This is not to be confused with second aorist participles who do have a tense formative tense formative and an augment. The second aorist participle is especially difficult for Greek students because the active and middle forms have the same morpheme and tense formative as the present.

<ref>http://www.drshirley.org/greek/grammar/g_verb-2AIAb.pdf</ref>
<ref>http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/grk101/linked_pages/aorist2.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/davis/page76.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/davis/page100.html</ref>

Bible

2009-04-27T16:04:53Z

JessicaT: /* Japan */

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]], to which additional books are recognized by [[Christians]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in [[Hebrew]], Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history;<ref> The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref>
the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation. Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the [[New Testament]], but the Protestant Bible includes 66 books of the [[Old Testament]] while the Catholic Bible includes an extra 7 books, for a total of 73.<ref>The Catholic Bible includes these books that are not included in the Protestant Bible:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]</ref> The Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html</ref>
{{Bible}}

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|Samuel
|Judges
|-
|Kings
|Ruth
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Job
|Ezra
|-
|Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Ruth
|Esther
|-
|Lamentations
|Job
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|Ester
|Proverbs
|-
|Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Ezra
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}

The [[Old Testament]], also called the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
* [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
* [[I Samuel]]
* [[II Samuel]]
* [[I Kings]]
* [[II Kings]]
* [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
** [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
** [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
** [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
** [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
** [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. [[Moses]] is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

==== Inspiration ====
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities by the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
Paul has been attributed by many as the author of ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', but several others, such as [[Barnabas]], [[Silas]], [[Stephen]], [[Apollos]] and [[Priscilla]] are also claimed to be the author. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuiness of the epistle. (Unger, pg. 748)
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the last days prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

==History of the Bible==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical. The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. <ref>http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html</ref>

===Early New Testament history===
[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.

===Gutenberg's Bible===
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world. The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many more people at a lower cost than if they were printed by hand.

===Wyclif's Bible===
The first translation of the Bible into English was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unweildy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed and smuggled into [[England]] Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. [http://www.e-sword.net] (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness." [http://www.mindspring.com/~je_cobb/presidentindex.html]

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. For example:

:After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

==Bible Versions==
*[[King James Version]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Douey-Rheims]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Latin Vulgate]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm - Aramaic New Testament resources
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Finnish====
* [http://www.raamattu-kirja.com Finnish Bible] (Finnish Old and New Testament)
* [http://vastaus.net Raamattu] (Study Finnish Bible)

====Japanese====
*[http://www.ibsstl.org/bibles/japanese/index.php On-line version hosted by the International Bible Society]
*[http://www.bible.or.jp/e/index.html Japan Bible Society]

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==Bibliography==

*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966).
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967).
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965).
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Bible

2009-04-27T16:04:05Z

JessicaT: /* Others */

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]], to which additional books are recognized by [[Christians]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in [[Hebrew]], Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history;<ref> The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref>
the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation. Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the [[New Testament]], but the Protestant Bible includes 66 books of the [[Old Testament]] while the Catholic Bible includes an extra 7 books, for a total of 73.<ref>The Catholic Bible includes these books that are not included in the Protestant Bible:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]</ref> The Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html</ref>
{{Bible}}

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|Samuel
|Judges
|-
|Kings
|Ruth
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Job
|Ezra
|-
|Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Ruth
|Esther
|-
|Lamentations
|Job
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|Ester
|Proverbs
|-
|Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Ezra
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}

The [[Old Testament]], also called the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
* [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
* [[I Samuel]]
* [[II Samuel]]
* [[I Kings]]
* [[II Kings]]
* [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
** [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
** [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
** [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
** [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
** [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. [[Moses]] is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

==== Inspiration ====
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities by the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
Paul has been attributed by many as the author of ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', but several others, such as [[Barnabas]], [[Silas]], [[Stephen]], [[Apollos]] and [[Priscilla]] are also claimed to be the author. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuiness of the epistle. (Unger, pg. 748)
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the last days prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

==History of the Bible==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical. The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. <ref>http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html</ref>

===Early New Testament history===
[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.

===Gutenberg's Bible===
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world. The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many more people at a lower cost than if they were printed by hand.

===Wyclif's Bible===
The first translation of the Bible into English was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unweildy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed and smuggled into [[England]] Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. [http://www.e-sword.net] (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness." [http://www.mindspring.com/~je_cobb/presidentindex.html]

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. For example:

:After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

==Bible Versions==
*[[King James Version]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Douey-Rheims]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Latin Vulgate]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm - Aramaic New Testament resources
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Finnish====
* [http://www.raamattu-kirja.com Finnish Bible] (Finnish Old and New Testament)
* [http://vastaus.net Raamattu] (Study Finnish Bible)

====Japan====
*[http://www.ibsstl.org/bibles/japanese/index.php On-line version hosted by the International Bible Society]
*[http://www.bible.or.jp/e/index.html Japan Bible Society]

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==Bibliography==

*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966).
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967).
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965).
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Nut (fruit)

2009-04-27T03:30:22Z

JessicaT: peanuts are not true nuts,

[[Image:Almonds.jpg|thumb|right|250px]]
A '''nut''' is, technically, a type of dry [[fruit]] in which one or two [[seed]]s is contained. The ovary wall hardens when the fruit matures, while the seeds remain unaffixed to the wall. Nuts are generally high in a variety of nutrients, notably protein and fat.

==List of nuts==
[[Cashew]]
[[Brazil nut]]

[[Category:Fruits]]

Super Mario Bros.

2009-04-26T15:57:01Z

JessicaT: Reverted edits by Rationaldebate (Talk) to last version by RKLuffy88

'''Super Mario Bros.''' ([[ESRB]] ratings: E) is one of the most well known [[video games]] in the industry. It is a platform game created by [[Nintendo]] for the [[Nintendo Entertainment System]], first released in 1985. It features the intrepid [[Mario]] in his adventures through Mushroom Kingdom to save [[Princess Peach]] from [[Bowser]]'s hands. It is the game that has sold the most copies worldwide and numerous ports, sequels and other merchandise has been made out of it.

It lacks any kind of realistic [[violence]] and can be enjoyed safely by the whole family.

The player controls Mario (or possibly [[Luigi]] in two-player mode) and must reach the goal in each side-scrolling level which is populated by numerous obstacles such as enemies, pitfalls and other hazzards. The player may obtain a red [[mushroom]] (increasing Mario's side and allowing him to be hit twice before losing a life), a fire flower (allowing Mario to throw bouncing [[fire]] [[ball]]s to eliminate some enemies), a bouncing [[star]]called Starman (making Mario invisible and eliminating enemies he comes in contact with), a green mushroom (giving Mario an extra life) or coins (collecting 100 of these will grant Mario an extra life). Most enemies are defeated by jumping on them directly and by throwing fire balls or [[shell]]s (obtained by jumping on Koopa Troopas, turtle-like enemies and Buzzy Beetles, a beetle-like equivalent) at them or The player travels through eight worlds, each consisting of four levels, the last one being a castle where an impersonation of Bowser dwells and must be defeated by reaching an [[axe]] and destroying the bridge he is standing on or by throwing enough fire balls at him, when he does, the player encounters a humanoid mushroom who tells him that the princess is in another castle (with the exception being the last one, where he finds the princess). The player may encounter warp [[pipe]]s that allow him to skip levels or even whole worlds.

==See Also==
*[[Mario]]

[[Category:NES Games]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-26T14:10:03Z

JessicaT: Reverted edits by Socchr (Talk) to last version by DanielVaccle

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''"? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian.

:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree. A president's religious beliefs are significant. When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian? I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.

:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them. Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object. Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

*That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period.
In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==

The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu. And not to mention he's released his birth certificate. I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here. I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back. It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources. Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations. I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==

Can we have an honest discussion about this section. There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.

The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:

* Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."[16]

I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]

This is misleading to say the least. Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia. Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[21]

If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said "John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith". Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim. If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.

* He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."[22]

Ok, it probably is "compatible with the modern world". Why is this evidence he is Muslim.

I could go on but I am getting tired of this. I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations. Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article? Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first. Early life and legal career and that stuff. And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody. I welcome any comments. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too. I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you. [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian. It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]]. Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement. Biographical information first and then other issues. By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.

: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence. Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's. Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not a truth, it's your theory that he is a Muslim, just as it is my theory that he is an Atheist. Obama says he is Christian, and who is to say otherwise? A person's faith is entirely a personal thing, you can never say for certain what he believes in, you have to go with what he has said in public, namely that he is Christian. Whether he might secretly be Muslim or Atheist is inconsequential, they are both theories, and neither theory belongs in an encyclopedia (which is fact based), end of story. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::And your claim that "Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent" is another sweeping generalization. Please tell me how that proves that he is a Muslim (or not an Atheist), because it's completely absurd

: By the way, Obama's father was an Atheist. I suspect that most people retain the religion (or lack thereof) of their parents. But either way, I'm not trying to make the case that he's an Atheist (or that he's not a Muslim). My point is that he says he's a Christian so anything else is just a theory which has no place in an encyclopedia article (unless this is not really an encyclopedia, but just a forum for pushing your conservative ideology). --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:40, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dog ==

Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==

I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

----
== Kenya is not a muslim country. ==

According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html
So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown

2009-04-26T11:39:43Z

JessicaT:

*Common protection reasons
** Edit warring
** Excessive spamming
** Excessive vandalism
** High traffic page
** Image protection policy
** User/Talk page of blocked/retired user
** Protecting contents of archived page

Talk:List of Americans in the Venona papers

2009-04-26T08:41:44Z

JessicaT: *?

This article had been nominated for deletion in WP, the result was no concensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&diff=prev&oldid=126780219] But efforts to delete will not stop, so I have been compelled to move this work which is exclusively my own effort here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==*==
Some names in this list are marked with an "*", but there is no explanation what the "*" stands for. Can anybody help, or can they be removed, as it is confusing at the moment? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 04:41, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Baraminology

2009-04-26T08:39:48Z

JessicaT: /* Evolutionist view */

'''Baraminology''' is the study of '''baramins''', also known by the Biblical term '''kinds'''.

A baramin is a lineage of earthly [[life]] which is believed by [[Young earth creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] to be created by [[God]] during the [[creation week]], and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of [[species]]. However, unlike species concepts that are based on Darwinian thinking, the baraminic barrier is inviolable, as other baramins do not [[Theory of evolution|evolve]] from earlier baramins.

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can [[Hybrid|hybridize]] with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The [[hybridization]] criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds</ref>
</blockquote>

Baraminology, as a model of origins, complements the [[Linnaean taxonomy | Linnaean taxonomic system]], which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. Baraminology is seen as an alternative to the evolutionary system of [[cladistics]], which is generally considered incompatible with Linnaean taxonomy since cladistics proposes an unfixed hierarchy.<ref>[http://www.palaeos.com/Systematics/Cladistics/incompatable.html The impracticality of reconciling the Linnean and the cladistic systems]</ref>

==History==

The term ''baramin'' was coined in 1941 by [[Frank Marsh]] from the [[Hebrew]] words ''bara'' (create) and ''min'' (kind).

It was resurrected in 1990 by [[Kurt Wise]] for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term ''baraminology''. That same year at the Second International Conference on [[Creationism]] in [[Pittsburgh]], [[Walter ReMine]] introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''.<ref name="frair">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms"], by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in ''CRS Quarterly'', Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.</ref>

==Baraminological Terms==

* '''Holobaramin''': A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be [[dog]]s, which form a holobaramin since [[wolf | wolves]], [[coyote | coyotes]], domesticated dogs and other [[canid | canids]] are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark | Ark]], and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

* '''Monobaramin''': A monobaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

* '''Apobaramin''': An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing [[Caucasian]]s and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

* '''Polybaramin''': A polybaramin is an ''ad hoc'' group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a [[duck]] are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:<ref name="frair"/>

* '''Archaebaramin''': An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

* '''Neobaramin & Paleobaramin''': A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ "Living for 900 years"], ''Creation'' 20(4):10–13, September 1998.</ref> and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp "Cain's wife -- who was she?"], Answers In Genesis</ref>).

==Baraminic Demarcation==

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, '''baraminic demarcation''' must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts<ref>[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf "A Refined Baramin Concept"], Wood ''et al.'', 2003, Baraminology Study Group.</ref>:

* '''Biological Character Space''' (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

* '''Potentiality Region''': A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

* '''Continuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

* '''Discontinuity''': describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

== Evolutionist view ==

Evolutionary scientists criticize Baraminology, claiming that it lacks rigorous testing and fails to produce any peer reviewed scientific research.<ref>www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html</ref> It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists. However their claim has been rejected by creation scientists who described it as a young field still in development and stated that criticism can be resolved with further research<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]</ref>.

No creature has ever been observed changing from one Baramin into another. Evolutionist [[Richard Lenski]] claims to have observed a bacteria evolving, but even if the unproven claim<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?], 14th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref> is true, the bacteria is still bacteria, it has not left its Baramin.
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

==Further Information==
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms]
* [http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ Baraminology Study Group]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The Current Status of Baraminology, Todd Charles Wood, CRSQ Vol 43 No 3, December 2006]
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Biology]] 
[[Category:Creationism]]

Belief in evolution

2009-04-26T08:39:21Z

JessicaT:

'''Belief in evolution''' usually takes any of three forms. If "[[evolution]]" is defined as any hereditary change at all in a group of similar living things, then everyone in the world believes in this; you may as well say "I believe in water." All scientists and nearly all religious people accept the concepts of [[mutation]] and [[inheritance]] (see [[Genetics]]).

If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around half of Americans believe in this;<ref>According to the aggregated data, 47% of Americans agree that God created humans pretty much in their present form either exactly as the Bible describes it or within the last 10,000 years. That leaves about half of Americans who agree that humans developed or evolved, either with or without God's help in the process. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx Gallup Poll]</ref>
a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago. 

Finally, if "evolution" refers to the [[Theory of Evolution]] associated with [[Charles Darwin]], that the principle of [[natural selection]] can account for the appearance of new forms of life, then only about 15% of Americans believe this. (Around 45% <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> of Americans believe that new forms of life have indeed appeared as indicated in the [[fossil record]], but they think this was due to God's intervention rather than natural processes alone.)

So when someone is reported to "believe in evolution", you need to be sure what sort of belief is being discussed.

==References==
<references/>

* http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

Lloyd Bentsen

2009-04-26T08:38:17Z

JessicaT: can find no reference to this anywhere. If somebody has a source, it can be added back.

[[Image:LloydBentsen.jpg|thumb|right|300px|US Treasury photo of Lloyd Bentsen]]
'''Lloyd Bentsen''' (1921 - 2006) was the [[Democrat]]ic candidate for Vice-President in the [[United States presidential election, 1988|1988 presidential election]]. Previously he served as a [[United States Senator]] for [[Texas]]. He later served under President [[Bill Clinton]] as [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]].

During the Vice Presidential debate in 1988, the question of whether Republican candidate [[Dan Quayle]] had enough experience to serve as Vice President came up for the third time in that debate, and Quayle answered it by comparing his Congressional experience with that of [[John F. Kennedy]] when he sought the Presidency. Bentsen had known Kennedy while they were both serving in Congress, and used this fact in his response (below), which changed the issue from Quayle's ''experience'' to his ''capability''. Quayle responded simply that Bentsen's attack was "uncalled for," which Bentsen countered by blaming Quayle for bringing up the comparison in the first place. 

Bentsen was a decorated [[World War II]] combat veteran, serving in the United States Army Air Corps. His son, who was of fighting age during the Vietnam conflict, never served in the war.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2DE1639F931A1575BC0A96E948260</ref>

Quotes:
* "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." ''Response to [[Dan Quayle]] during the 1988 Vice-presidential debate. ''

==External Links==

* http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/washington/24bentsen.html?ei=5088&en=76fccf1b5e08e750&ex=1306123200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
* http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=13562&title=Remembering_Lloyd_Bentsen_a_Different_Way
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300593.html

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bentsen, Lloyd}}

[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:United States Secretaries of the Treasury]]

Josef Berger

2009-04-26T08:35:40Z

JessicaT: source {{fact}} tag

{| cellpadding="1" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #8888aa; background: #f7f8ff; padding: 5px; font-size: 85%; margin: 0 15px 0 15px;"
| style="background: #ccf; text-align: center;" | '''This article is part of the''' '''[[Venona project|Venona]]''' '''series.'''
|-
| style="text-align: center;"|[[CPUSA#Secret_apparatus|Secret apparatus]]
|-
| style="text-align: center;"|[[Democratic National Committee]]
|-
|style="border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc"|
|-
| style="text-align: center;"|[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Ushistory&action=edit Edit this box]
|}
'''Josef Berger''', or '''Joseph Isadore Berger''' (May 12, 1903 - November 1971), was an [[United States|American]] journalist and [[Democratic National Committee]] speechwriter. According to the Venona files, Berger also worked for the KGB, although he was never arrested or charged with a crime.<ref>[http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf FBI Verona Files]</ref> Berger was born in Denver, Colorado in 1903 and graduated from the University of Missouri School of Journalism in 1924. He worked as a reporter for the "Kansas City Star" for a time.

In 1934, he settled with his wife and daughter in Provincetown, Massachusetts where he tried to make it as a freelance writer. Berger had a hard time earning money and for about year lived in near poverty until he found a job with the [[New Deal]] government sponsored Federal Writer's Project.

Berger, who wrote under the pen name '''Jeremiah Digges''', was an extraordinarily well-connected journalist employed by the [[United States Department of Justice]] in [[1942]] as a speech-writer for the Attorney-General, [[Francis Biddle]], and later also secretary to the chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]] (DNC), Robert E. Hannegan. He also served as a U.S. delegate on the Reparations Commission.

== Sources ==
* [http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf FBI Venona Files]
* John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, ''Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999)
* Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, ''The Spy Who Seduced America: Lies and Betrayal in the Heat of the Cold War: The Judith Coplon Story'', (Invisible Cities Press LLC, 2002) ISBN 1931229228

{{DEFAULTSORT:Berger, Josef}}
[[Category:KGB Agents and Sources]]

Atheism and beliefs

2009-04-26T08:25:06Z

JessicaT: /* Atheism and beliefs about history */

There are number of beliefs that are common among proponents of [[Western World]] [[atheism]] which will shortly be covered. Also, an examination of the subject of '''atheism and beliefs''' quickly leads to the reasonable conclusion that the [[belief|beliefs]] held in "faith" by [[atheists]] are without any supporting evidence.

== Atheism and beliefs about the origins of the universe ==
* [[Big Bang]] theory: atheists believe that the universe was created by the big bang approximately 13 billion years ago, with no plausible cause or catalyst.<ref>Gordon Stein, ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism,'' 14.</ref>

== Atheism and beliefs about the origins of life ==
* [[Abiogenesis]]: atheists assert that cellular life was materialistically generated from inorganic material, the "[[primordial soup]]." Abiogenesis has not been established in any scientific study, and is profoundly unlikely, given the miniscule odds of the right mix of chemical and environment existing, which are necessary for organic life.
* Materialistic Evolution: atheists believe that all life on earth developed from the first organic cells, according to [[Darwin]]'s [[evolution|Theory of Evolution]]. Importantly, they categorically reject the potential of God's hand in this process, though without cause (see: [[Theistic evolution]] for a different take). See [[evolution|The Theory of Evolution]] for the inherent problems of this belief.

== Politics ==
* [[Socialism]]: While there are certainly atheist capitalists, many atheists in history have tended towards socialism and communism and modern [[Communism|communism was explicitly atheistic in origin]]. Many atheists believe laissez-faire capitalism is unproductive, even though capitalism has provided the greatest growth of productivity and standards of living in human history.<ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/humnsm.htm</ref>
* Limited freedoms: atheists believe that individuals should have free speech, so long as it does not contradict atheistic or evolutionary doctrine.

== Atheism and beliefs about history ==
* Science and Christianity: atheists believe that religion is antithetical to scientific research and deny that Christianity was important to the development of science, when in fact the [[Scientific Revolution]] was brought about by scientists seeking a greater knowledge of God. <ref>http://www.adelaide.edu.au/aripl/impactawards/speaker/nicholas.pdf</ref>
* Democracy and Christianity: atheists believe that democracy does not rely on Christianity, even though they are clearly linked in Western history and no atheist democracy has ever succeeded.<ref>http://www.atheists.org/press_releases/atheists_support_student_protest_of_&%238220%3Bgod_pledge&%238221%3B</ref>
*Atheists deny that many of the Founding Fathers were Christian, pretending instead that they were Deists.<ref>James Thrower, ''A Short History of Western Atheism,'' 212.</ref>

== General philosophy ==
* Naturalism: atheists believe that the universe ''only'' operates through natural processes, and is limited to what can be observed. Most scientists, (from [[Newton]] to [[Einstein]] to present) on the other hand, assert that while the observable universe follows natural processes, [[first causes]] are unknowable, and our knowledge is limited to what we can detect, leaving open the potential for the spiritual, the soul, and divine acts of God.

* Scientism: atheists believe that all knowledge and aspects of life can be refined to a science (see [[Comte]] and [[positivism]]), including religious belief, ethics, morality, and the soul.

* Human improvement: atheists believe that humans have grown increasingly moral and intelligent as time has gone on, and that people can be improved or perfected through education and [[liberal]] institution-crafting, without relying upon God to cleanse sin.<ref>http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=declaration&section=main</ref><ref>http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2008/09/09/a-theological-evaluation-of-a-secular-humanist-declaration/</ref>

* Unbounded reason: atheists believe that human [[reason]] is capable of comprehending absolutely anything, a theory long since rejected by moral philosophers such as [[Kant]].<ref>James Thrower, ''A Short History of Western Atheism,'' 14.</ref>

== Religion and God ==
* Comprehensible God: extending from an arrogance in their own reason, atheists believe that if God exists, He and His works must be comprehensible. Therefore, they argue that God does not exist from paradoxes and such arguments as the [[Problem of Evil]], which God transcends.<ref>James Thrower, ''A Short History of Western Atheism,'' 33.</ref>

* Disbelief from silence: atheists believe that God does not exist, merely because there is no ''absolute'' proof that he does exist, a [[logical fallacy]]. Atheists believe that science disproves God<ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/humnsm.htm</ref> but have no actual evidence that this is the case.

* Moral superiority: atheists believe that religion causes strife and that atheists are inherently morally superior to theists. This flies in the face of actual evidence, which shows that atheists are markedly less generous than theists.<ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/ Religious Faith and Charitable Giving,] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref>

* Moral relativism: atheists believe that no absolute morals exist, God-inspired or otherwise, and thus rely on vague, transient, and corrupting notions of morality.<ref>http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=declaration&section=main</ref>

*Satan: Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work.

*Superior intellect: atheists believe that atheists are inherently more intelligent than theists, and some even consider this an "inevitable product of ongoing social selection."<ref>Gordon Stein, ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism,'' 164.</ref>
==See Also==
*[[Atheism and belief]]
*[[Belief in evolution]]

{{Nb_Atheism}}

== References ==
<references />

Bishop

2009-04-26T08:23:40Z

JessicaT: source {{fact}} tag

A '''bishop''' ([[Greek]] ''episkopos'' an overseer) is a high-ranking member of the clergy, present in many Christian churches, including Catholic, Orthodox and certain Protestant denominations. A ''primate'' is usually the highest-ranking bishop in a particular region or within the boundaries of a nation-state.

He (or she in more liberal denominations) traditionally wears a [[miter]] and oversees a [[diocese]]. In some churches, a bishop is regarded as part of the [[apostolic succession]]. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/30289/apostolic-succession/30289rellinks/Related-Links</ref>

A '''bishop''' is also a [[chess]] piece.

[[Category:Christian Group Structuring]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

Atheistic tools

2009-04-26T08:23:10Z

JessicaT: rmv spurous fact tag

[[Atheists]] will try to use the following [[tools]] in arguments or attempts to defend their [[atheism]]:

*[[brainwashing]]
*[[censorship]]
*[[deceit]]
*[[democide]]<ref>The atheistic [[communist]]s have killed over 100 million people.</ref>
*[[diplomacy]]
*[[environmentalism]]
*[[fear mongering]]
*[[harassment]]
*[[homosexual agenda]]
*[[ideology]]
*[[indoctrination]]
*[[intimidation]]
*[[liberal logic]]
*[[logical fallacy]]
*[[mass media]]
*[[obscenity]]
*[[political correctness]]
*[[professor values]]
*[[public education]]
*[[Darwinian science]]
*[["sound" reasoning]]
*[[terrorism]]
*[[violence]]

==Examples==
*By not allowing prayer in [[public school]], liberals are undermining religion.
*[[Hollywood values]] capture youth and expose them to [[atheistic values]].

Please add to the list or adjust priorities, or add examples (as references) to illustrate how these atheistic tools are used.

==See Also==
* [[liberal tools]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Atheism]]

IDE

2009-04-26T08:07:16Z

JessicaT: fix double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Integrated Development Environment]]

File:Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg

2009-04-26T02:38:45Z

JessicaT: Protected "File:Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg": Image protection policy ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

source: The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH.
[[File:Public_domain_sign.png|50px]]
Public domain image
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Claude_Monet_010.jpg

Gallery of French Masterpieces

2009-04-26T02:33:07Z

JessicaT: fix link prior to deleting old file

<center>
'''French Masterpieces Gallery '''

</center>

'''From the French Masters'''
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Poussin The Holy Family on the Steps.jpg|The Holy Family on the Steps. [[Nicolas Poussin]]
Image:Lorrain The Return of Odysseus.jpg|The Return of Odysseus. [[Claude Lorrain]]
Image:Le Brun Le Chancelier Séguier.JPG|Le Chancelier Séguier. '''Charles Le Brun'''
Image:Boucher Landscape with Figures Gathering Cherries..jpg|Landscape with Figures Gathering Cherries. [[François Boucher]]
Image:Vien cupid.jpg|Cupid. [[Joseph Marie Vien]]
Image:Fragonard The Pursuit.jpg|The Pursuit. [[Jean-Honoré Fragonard]]
Image:Socrates-Death.jpg|The death of Socrates. [[Jacques Louis David]]
Image:Ingres Mme Moitessier.jpg|Mme. Moitessier. [[Jean Ingres]]
Image:Delacroix L'Etang de Beauregard dans la commune Le Louroux.jpg|L'Etang de Beauregard dans la commune Le Louroux. [[Eugene Delacroix]]
Image:Courbet - Gustave.jpg|Self-Portrait [[Gustave Courbet]]
Image:Boudin Trouville.jpg|Trouville. [[Eugene Boudin]]
Image:Bouguereau. Charity.jpg|Charity. [[Adolphe William Bouguereau]]
Image:Pissarro The Woodcutter.jpg|The Woodcutter. [[Camille Pissarro]]
Image:Degas Breaking-In.jpg|Breaking-In [[Edgar Degas]]
Image:Cézanne Still Life with Fruit.jpg|Still Life with Fruit. [[Paul Cezanne]]
Image:Manet The Balcony.jpg|The Balcony. [[Edouard Manet]]
File:Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg|Le Pont d'Argenteuil. [[Claude Monet]]
Image:Renoir13.jpg|On the Terrace. [[Pierre-Auguste Renoir]]
Image:Gauguin Nativity.JPG|Nativity. [[Paul Gauguin]]
Image:Seurat Paradetl.jpg|The Side Show, Detail. [[George-Pierre Seurat]]

</gallery> </center> 
'''Continue to:''' [[French Masterpieces Gallery II]]
[[Image:CALLET-Louis-XVI.jpg|thumb|King Louis XVI, by Antoine-François Callet, 1789]]

{{Clear}}

== See also ==

*[[Painting Galleries]]
*[[Famous French paintings]]
*[[French painting]]

[[Image:Lorrain embarkation of the queen of sheba.jpg|thumb|left|[[Claude Lorrain]], Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba.]]

[[Category:Painting]]
[[Category:French Painters]]

File:Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg

2009-04-26T02:22:14Z

JessicaT:

File:Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg

2009-04-26T02:16:06Z

JessicaT: testing

testing

Talk:Claus von Stauffenberg

2009-04-25T23:10:22Z

JessicaT: Created page with '==Mastermind?== I am not 100% sure if 'masterminded' is the right word to use. True, he did carry the bomb into the conference room, but (and it has been a while since I read 'Ri...'

==Mastermind?==
I am not 100% sure if 'masterminded' is the right word to use. True, he did carry the bomb into the conference room, but (and it has been a while since I read 'Rise & Fall of the 3rd Reich') I am sure there were others more senior in the conspiracy. I could very well be wrong; I shall dig out my copy and see what it says about the conspiracy. 
Good idea to link to "July 20 plot" - that could make for an interesting article. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 19:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:George W. Bush

2009-04-24T16:19:35Z

JessicaT: Reverted edits by Vandalizer (Talk) to last version by Kschroe

{{Protected|TK}}

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

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

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

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::There IS no Liberal Media! [[User:MrDubya|MrDubya]] 01:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you mean "there is no cabal!" ? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

It is well known that the media is overwelmingaly liberal. This is based on facts. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:Based on facts that come from the liberal media itself! Mindblowing, isn't it?

== Edits ==

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

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

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

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

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

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

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

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

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

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

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

== Nation building ==

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

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

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

== Economy ==

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

Does it bother the reader that while citing Exxon Mobile profits being at record highs, gas prices also are at record highs? This may not be a very good supporting argument as it raises suspicion that our current American way of life is at risk due to the high costs of fuel, which is hurting real estate as more and more people re-urbanize living closer to their workplaces in the city as well as the overall economy as people go out less because they want to conserve fuel. {{unsigned|Tchen}}
::Does it bother the reader that [[China]] has one fifth of the planets population and only 1% drive cars? Does it bother the reader that China's economy is growing at 17%? Does it bother the reader that when 2% of China's population own cars, gas will go from $3 to $6 per gallon? Does it bother the reader that US politicians in Washington DC can nothing about this? Does it bother readers that implied solution here is to exterminate the Chinese? Yes, it does bother this reader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

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

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

== Locked Page ==

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

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

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

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::not true, it also matters if you want to get lent more money, and it is also a matter of principal-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Economy ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridiculous claim ==

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

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

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

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

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

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: and just insulting people to disprove their point is also idiotic. and sarcasm isn't idiotic at all its actually quite clever-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

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

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

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.
:writing unsigned comments is quite annoying, although i agree about the conservapedia point (tip there was no 200 election in america)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

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

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

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

You neglected to mention that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a half-million votes. Your refusal to address it is just plain sad. Jesus hates liars.

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

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

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

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yep. Since WP does not enforce its only policies, perhaps we can have the first ever NPOV article written here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Wait, wait. So Wikipedia has "a horrible anti-liberal" and "Anti American" bias, and you follow its rules on NPOV? [[User:NaglfarorGleipnir|NaglfarorGleipnir]] 18:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== template ==
I think this article should use a template similar to the others in Presidents of the United States category.. see [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] for example. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Public Criticisms? ==
Shouldn't Bush's page have a public criticisms page as suggested in the manual of style? It is an issue significant to his presidency. And what about his handling of 9-11? And why does the economic section sound sarcastic with respect tp executive salaries. This article needs a lot of help. [[User:Pokowpane|Pokowpane]] 18:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:What? You think you can do it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

This page should have a criticism title like those for other President's. I don't think it has much credibility unless it does. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 10:24, 18 June 2007

:Absolutely. Unless it's Conservapedia policy not to report on criticism of presidents. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

Bush had an alcohol problem until 1986, as he has openly admitted in the past. The severity of this problem remains open to doubt. Comment by User: Darkmind1970 (08:23, 4 January 2008)

== Threats ==

We can't have a threats section. Otherwise, every liberal/communist would be on it!

== Economic Policy ==

To write that Bush worked with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage is a little disingenuous. The minimum wage increase was a platform of the 2006 Democrats. While Bush didn't specifically issue a veto threat, as per the article referenced, the White House wanted tax breaks for small businesses to offset the cost to those businesses. I think the current revision is a better recount of the minimum wage increase. It credits both Democrats, as it was their issue, as well as Bush, who signed the provision after he got what he wanted in the bill.

I'm not trying to vandalize, merely provide more context to the actions.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, "worked with" is the operative phrase. In general, Republicans oppose increases in the [[minimum wage]], on the grounds that it hurts [[inner city]] youth - making it harder for them to get [[entry-level]] jobs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Poll #'s Are Wrong ==

His most recent poll rating, according to ARG on 2/20/08, is 19%! http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

user:armstongandmiller says:

i heard that his approval rating dropped below that of broccoli

==Faith==

"Most people feel his faith is sincere and profound". Evidence please? Polls showing this to be true? This is clearly the writer's personal belief and not an encyclopedic fact. Please remove this sentence. {{unsigned|StephenS}}

:Absolutely. Without saying who it is that feels this, and quoting some reference to back it up, this is just puffery. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:33, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Cats==
Please add this article to [[:Category:Texas]] and [[:Category:United States Governors]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 16:25, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==biased reports==
"mostly due to biased media reports". This statement about the President's popularity clearly reflects the writer's opinion. Do we have a reference to back it up? If not, why is it here? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Click the wikilink on the word "bias" in the section. Also check out [[media bias]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:54, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Read those. Nothing there indicates that Bush's falling polls are the fault of liberal media. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea has a point, I think the American populace is more upset that gas prices are skyrocketing while we have two oilmen in the Whitehouse and Americans are dying overseas for oil. I don't see a media bias in this, or if there is, how this bias isn't reflective of reality (I mean, 4.34?! a gallon)--[[User:MarkS|MarkS]] 16:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==2000 election controversy==

Why is there no mention at all of the 2000 Florida vote controversy? Surely we can't ignore what happened there? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is an article on the [[United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000|2000 election]] where such material would be more appropriate. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:57, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a link to that in the first paragraph where the 2000 election is mentioned would be helpful for readers. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Early life==
No mention of anything before governorship? No mention of National Guard? What exactly are we allowed to write in this article? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Write up what you would like added and post it here. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Economic Legacy?==

The current version of Bush's economic legacy is no longer valid, and leaves out any mention of the record deficits run up during his administration. I'm willing to put together an objective, properly referenced record of the positive and negative impact this administration has had on the US economy, if someone will pledge to unlock and post it so it's not a wast of time. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:It seems like this would be a good time to revise the "Economic Legacy" section. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:38, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:This page needs to be unlocked so this section can be edited - it's so out of date it hurts the usefulness of this site for students looking to use it as a reference. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::I want to remind you not to use word hyperbole to make an unwarranted point. As a percent of GDP, the deficits aren't even close to being "records". I hope that any alterations you make will accurately reflect this and treat it in a balanced way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:33, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, and I'll be careful to be fair. My intention is to divide the Bush economic legacy into three phases - one for his first administration, one for the first half of his second administration (2005-06), and the third covering 2007-08. This way he can be acknowledged for areas where progress was both made and lost. I'll also cite statistics from the government instead of the media for objectivity. If the page gets hit by vandalism and needs to be locked, I'll post my suggested edits here and you can apply them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:58, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikilinks ==

Could someone add wikilinks to "Laura Bush" and "United Methodist" in the infobox please? Thank you. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Plg6067's edit ==

I must say that I found his edit very good: up to the point, concise, and... right. Does anyone have any proof on the contrary? --[[User:LadaNiva|LadaNiva]] 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:Try making some serious edits. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Unscourced==

''"Liberals have accused him of having a barbaric foreign policy, but actually Bill Clinton invaded more countries than Pres. Bush."''

This is a good and valid point, but it needs references. Please cite a scource for both things. It'd be nice if you could get some quotes from more prominent liberals.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Still President?==

==Still President?==

This page still reads as though he is the current president. E.g. it says "Serving as president since 2001" and also lines like "when he leaves office". Just a thought. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:19, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Zogby poll referenced should have link changed ==

The link to the document on the poll should be changed to be a link to the poll itself.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1588

"As the President's job approval ratings hit a new record low, job performance ratings for Congress have again fallen to their previous record-low of 9% it slipped to in August. The Democratically-controlled Congress earns positive ratings from 13% of Democrats, a drop from 18% who said the same in September. Republican approval has also fallen to 6% from 10% who said the same last month, while Congressional job approval ratings from political independents held steady at 10%."

User talk:CPalmer

2009-04-24T14:46:18Z

JessicaT:

Archive: [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2008|2008]]
==Award==
I am declaring you an honourary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome WikiGnome] for all your efforts in doing the fiddly things no-one else seems to do. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 12:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)

[[Image:Wikignome.png|200px|left]]

:Thanks! And congratulations to you on your well-deserved promotion - Conservapedia will benefit enormously from your extra powers.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::Thank you! Please yell if there is some way I can put these mysterious new powers to use helping you out. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 13:28, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Great addition ==

That's a great addition to [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:Thanks - I've been trying to think of a word that would be suitable, but not come up with anything good so far. I'll add it if I do...--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Liberal deceit ==

That's isn't a category, but a re-direct to [[deceit]]. The category for it, and the like is "Liberalism" which is added by the template "liberalism". --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:47, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:Seems logical. Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:57, 13 January 2009 (EST)

== query. ==

Just on your query "is there a way to list articles where the reflist is missing?" I am not 100% sure what you mean, but can I help? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:36, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Just that in articles that have a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag but not a <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tag, you get a big red error message at the bottom of the page. I've come across a few of these by chance, but I was wondering whether there was a more systematic way to find and fix them (I also queried it at [[User Talk:EdBot]]).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:See the bottom of [[Talk:Barack Obama]] for an example of what I mean.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::(NMHOB) I misread you and fixed that one, then re-read and realised what you meant.... sorry. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah, I see what you mean. To be honest I have no idea if there is an "easy" way to find them (like when I had to find all the unprotected pictures). Edbot might be your best bet. Sorry I can not help. :( --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:48, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:::No problem Mike. For the benefit of anyone else reading this, I'm going to make an example at [[User:CPalmer/Missingrefs]].--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::::Found a list! [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.conservapedia.com+%22cite+error%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= This] Google search brings up several pages of them. Perhaps someone with some spare time might offer their services?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Well done! Please copy the link on my talk page. I will help out with them when I get back home from the dojo. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 10:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I have had a look at a few of those on the Google list and it seems as if it is a bigger problem. Most of those seem to be named reference tags, with no original reference linked to them. Tricky. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 13:29, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Thanks for the heads-up ==
I'll redo that [[liberal ideology]] edit then. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:41, 3 February 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome, Unders.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:30, 4 February 2009 (EST)

==Pokemon deletions==
Having a bit of fun with it, are you (i.e. deleticus, I choose you!)? Good stuff. :) [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 14:20, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes, small things and small minds I know, but it livens up the recent change list.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::This is true. Delete, delete, delete is too plain. Imagine how dull it was to read cat, cat, cat, recat, cat the cat, etc a few months ago between the two of us. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 14:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::The trouble is, now that all those pages have been deleted my super-exciting edit comments are lost forever.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:51, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== [[East India Company]] ==

Economic History as the category, and not International Trade, or trade of some sort? Did you check with Wesley, me or anyone else? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Good point - I've re-added the category, and integrated it into the existing categories. (I removed it because it was a red link with no other articles in it, so not very useful as it stood.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Funny characters ==

Just fixed them all, thanks for pointing that out. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 18:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:No problem - thanks for coming to it so quickly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Bible references ==

Thanks for pointing that out. It was something I forgot to do after the crash. It's working correctly now. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:03, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Where is Hell?==
I have been reading your interesting essay and it's responses and thought I would add a little trivia to the mix. Ironically, being Christian, but still being influenced by the family's Shinto/Buddhist beliefs, I have 3 hells to choose from - the Christian Hell; Buddhist Naraku (much like the Greek Hades) and Jigoku (derived from the Chinese ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyu Diyu]''). Actually - compare Diyu to the Hell of Dante's Inferno - might make interesting reading.

Another interest point, is that while the Greeks believed the River Styx separated earth from the underworld, Japanese believe they cross the River Sanzu and are even buried with 6 coins to pay the ferryman. Strange that 2 such different cultures should have such similar beliefs. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 06:40, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for this - I know nothing about Chinese or Japanese thought in these areas so your angle on it is much appreciated.. I will certainly read up on Diyu when I have a moment!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:02, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

Well done for [[The Divine Comedy]] making featured article. Certainly one of the most deserving candidates. Keep up the great work. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 07:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:Thanks very much!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:02, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Cheers! Good to know there's another Classicist on CP. I'm still getting used to editing!{{unsigned|LewisNewburn}}

== Really now? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette] Reverting Administrator edits, that isn't a good idea. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:22, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== Thanks for the typos ==
Thanks for the typos correction! In another story, I don't suppose you have block rights for that Badger fellow? He's spouting foolish (albeit interesting) rubbish about a text book being commie propaganda. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:No problem about the typos, E. As for the Badger, I see the moment is long gone, but for future reference I only have the basic rights that you have.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)

== Broken re-directs ==

*Many of those are "undiscovered" gems from now blocked users, or belong to users who need to be blocked, and the sub pages should be deleted, I am thinking. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:53, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:Yep - I think Jessica's seen to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:30, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== Mail ==

Hi - I dropped you a mail last night via the mail link here. Just checking if you received it. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 10:20, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:Hi. I didn't receive it (have checked my junk folder too and it's not there either). I'm surprised it hasn't worked, since I did get an email from a different user a few days ago.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:29, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:I've just emailed you - perhaps it will work the other way!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::Received and replied. Thank you! (Now where did my mail go?) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 14:48, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==[[Things named after places]]==

It's all in good fun: not a serious article. We need to relax and enjoy ourselves once in a while, lest we become stodgy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
:Hear, hear!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:14, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

==Backslapping==
Might need to be renamed "Kiss of Death" or something {o.O}. /looks nervously over her shoulder... --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 10:46, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Articles for deletion

2009-04-24T07:52:29Z

JessicaT:

'''Conservapedia:Articles for deletion''' is a project space designed to explain the process and requirements for proposing the removal of an article, and to list the current discussions.

==Deletion Process==

If you think an article should be deleted because it violates The Conservapedia Commandments, or for any other reason you may nominate it for deletion. The correct process for this is as follows:
# Add the template <nowiki>{{Delete Notice}}</nowiki> to the ''top'' of the page
# List the article on this page under [[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions|current discussions]], using the template <nowiki>{{afd|"title"}}</nowiki>, replacing "title" with the name of the page
# Follow the link from the deletion notice to the AFD page for the article nominated for deletion, and explain why you believe it should be deleted

Discussion will occur on the AFD page before a final decision regarding the article is made.

This is not the appropriate place to discuss copyright issues. Please use [[Conservapedia:Copying]] to track articles that have no problem with topic or content, but which seem to draw too heavily on material copied from elsewhere.


__toc__

= Current discussions =
*{{afd|10 Years}}
*{{afd|How_is_wikipedia_anti-American%3F}}
*{{afd|Gerin_Oil}}
*{{afd|Template:User Christianity Not This}}
*{{afd|Skeptics Annotated Bible}}
*{{afd|Kiger v. Plaisance Dragline}}
*{{afd|Posterior_end}}
*{{afd|POV-check}}
*{{afd|Llap Doch}}

= Past discussions =

== Kept ==

*{{afd kept|17 February 2007|South Park}}
*{{afd kept|14 March 2007|Grok}}
*{{afd kept|15 March 2007|Fallen angels}}
*{{afd kept|11 April 2007 |Hamlet|namespace=Conservapedia:}}
*{{afd kept|21 April 2007|Wars France lost}} redirected to [[French Wars]]
*{{afd kept|8 May 2007|Homosexuality}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007 |Agreement}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Buche de Noel}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Congressional Quarterly article}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Cornpone}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Cult}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Evolutionism}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Homer Simpson}}
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007|Homosphere}}
*{{afd kept|18 May 2007 |Uncyclopedia}} and locked
*{{afd keep|21 May 2007|"Same-sex marriage"}}
*{{afd kept|23 May 2007|Lesbians }} Repaired, marked as stub & proposed for merger
*{{afd kept|26 May 2007|Bam Margera}}

==Kept with provisions ==

*{{afd keep|19 Feb 2007|Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious}} - Merged with [[Mary Poppins]]

==Deleted==

The following pages have had an AFD discussion and the resulting decision was to delete the article.
\
*{{afd deleted|6 March 2007|Xbox 360}}
*{{afd deleted|11 March 2007|Cheesy potatoes}}
*{{afd deleted|17 April 2007|Inbreeding}}
*{{afd deleted|20 April 2007|Producerism}}
*{{afd deleted|21 April 2007|Jings}}
*{{afd deleted|25 April 2007|Cookie Monster}}
*{{afd deleted|27 April 2007|DuckTales}}
*{{afd deleted|29 April 2007|Walford}}
*{{afd deleted|30 April 2007|Fulchester}}
*{{afd deleted|30 April 2007|Trumpton Riots}}
*{{afd deleted|02 May 2007 |Chanty wrassling}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Andrew Ridgeley}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Bertie Higgins}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Corky Romano}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Kevin Federline}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007 |Lance Bass}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Questions or Comments}}
*{{afd deleted|11 May 2007|George Hammond}}
*{{afd deleted|11 May 2007|Premarital sex}}
*{{afd deleted|14 May 2007| Kwai nyu rugby}}
*{{afd deleted|3 June 2007|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?}}
*{{afd deleted|15 May 2008| Engrish}}
*{{afd deleted|6 October 2008|Shelley Goodman}}
*{{afd deleted|3rd February, 2009|Queues}}
*{{afd deleted|24 April 2009|Help:About}}

*{{afd deleted|???|Jack Of All Trades}}
*{{afd deleted|???|Jack of all trades}}
*{{afd deleted|???|Church of the SubGenius}}

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/archive 1|01]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/archive 2|02]]