Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Pikes Peak

2007-08-07T00:39:38Z

John: 14110

'''Pikes Peak''' (also sometimes referred to as Pike's Peak) is a [[mountain]] in the Front Range of the [[Rocky Mountains]], 10 miles (16 km) west of [[Colorado Springs]], [[Colorado]], in [[El Paso County]]. It is named for [[Zebulon Pike]], an explorer who led an expedition in the southern Colorado area and other parts of the newly acquired [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1806. (Ironically, Pike himself never reached the summit of Pikes Peak.) At 14,115 feet (4302 m){{fact}}, it is one of Colorado's 54 [[fourteeners]]. Pikes Peak has been designated a [[National Historic Landmark]].

[[category:United States geography]]

James Ussher

2007-08-07T00:36:22Z

John: /* Objections */

[[Image:James_Ussher.jpg|right|thumb]]
[[James Ussher]] (b. 4 January 1581, fl. 1625, d. 21 March 1656) was [[Archbishop]] of [[Armagh]] and [[Primate]] of All [[Ireland]]. He is best known for his massive compendium of ancient history, ''[[The Annals of the World]],'' in which he attempted to calculate the number of years that had elapsed since [[date of creation|creation]].

== Life and Career ==
Ussher was born in [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]]. He determined early to pursue a career with the [[Church of England]], a resolve quite similar to that of the [[Bible|Biblical]] Judge, [[Samuel]].

He entered Dublin University at the age of 18, and at 20 achieved ordination as a deacon and priest. At 26, he became Professor and Chairman of the Department of Divinity at Dublin University, and held his professorship from 1609 to 1621. In 1625, he became Archbishop of Armagh, an office he apparently held until his death. In 1628, King James made him a Privy Councillor.

He was considered well-read and well-versed in history, a subject that soon became his primary focus. He wrote several histories of the doings of the Irish and [[England|English]] churches dating back to [[Rome|Roman]] times. He also made himself an expert in [[Semitic]] languages, an expertise that informed his argument in favor of the [[Masoretic Text]] of the [[Bible]] in preference to the [[Septuagint]].

He died in 1656. [[Lord Protector]] [[Oliver Cromwell]] honored him with a State funeral and a burial in [[Westminster Abbey]]. His extensive library of manuscripts, many of them Middle Eastern originals, became part of the collection at Dublin University.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074527/James-Ussher James Ussher in the Encylopedia Britannica online]</ref>

== Arguments for Biblical Chronology ==
As mentioned, Ussher is best known for his [[chronology]] of events in the Bible and other events recorded outside it. Ussher assumed, first of all, that the Bible was the most reliable, if not the only reliable, source for the events that it records. This included the lengths of the lives of [[Abraham]] and his ancestors, and of [[Isaac]], [[Jacob]], and the line of [[Judah]], including especially the [[House of David|Davidic]] dynasty of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of [[Israel]].

In deciding how to synchronize the [[Christian]] or ''[[Anno Domini]]'' era with an era using [[Creation]] itself as its [[epoch]], Ussher chose the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] as the anchor point and worked backward from that date through the Bible. Thus he calculated the date of Creation as 23 October, 4004 BC. So influential was Ussher that for centuries his chronology was included in every printed edition of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible.

=== Objections ===
The obvious objections that secular historians have against Ussher's chronology follow from their notion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and not merely six thousand or so years old. That, however, is a purely philosophical objection{{fact}}--and indeed, [[young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] have by now assembled a powerful{{fact}} body of evidence that the earth indeed could not be much older than Ussher calculated it to be{{fact}}.

The Biblical objections are more serious, however. They turn on Ussher's interpretation of certain passages, such as {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17|version=NASB}} and {{Bible ref|book=Ezekiel|chap=4|verses=5|version=NASB}}, that separate certain key events in Hebrew history. Happily, Ussher left copious notes detailing his methods and his arguments. Today [[Larry Pierce]],<ref>[[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop," Appendix B of James Ussher, ''[[The Annals of the World]],'' Larry and Marion Pierce, eds., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003, pp. 891-2, ISBN 0890513600</ref> who undertook to translate the ''Annals'' into English from their original [[Latin]], has prepared vigorous defenses of Ussher and his work. While not all of Ussher's calculations might be able to stand (see [[Biblical chronology dispute]] for details), his notes at least inform modern readers of the basis of his calculations and enable them to construct a Biblical corrective.

==== The Divided Kingdoms: How Long Was Their History? ====
Centuries after Ussher died, [[Edwin R. Thiele]]<ref>[[Edwin R. Thiele|Thiele, Edwin R.]], ''The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings''</ref> attempted a revision of the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]] to make them comport to generally accepted dates from [[Assyrian chronology]]. The effect of Thiele's proposed corrective is to shorten the history of the Divided Kingdoms by forty-five years--but that figure is actually closer than at least two other disputed figures in Ussher's calculations. Moreover, it suggests that the [[Exodus]] from [[Egypt]] took place in 1446 BC--the "Early Date"--and not 1290 BC, the "Late Date" in current widespread [[Archaeology|archaeological]] favor. Ussher calculates the Exodus as occurring in 1491 BC.

Pierce, since 2003, has led a counterattack against Thiele and has argued for the primacy of Scripture over any archaeological find, no matter how allegedly strong the evidence might appear to be. His primary--indeed only--quarrel with Thiele concerns the history of the Northern Kingdom and alleged synchronies between Kings [[Ahab]] and [[Jehu]] of that kingdom and King [[Sennacherib III]] of [[Assyria]]--synchronies that Ussher did not mention, because the Bible did not mention them.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Religious people|Ussher, James]]

Pub

2007-08-07T00:31:44Z

John:

The English '''Pub''' is a tavern where fine traditional ales are served in a friendly setting. The name is a contraction of "Public House" - an inn open to all, as opposed to a private club.

Pub's were traditionally run by a ''landlord'', often known as "mine host". Originally ales, porters and stouts would have been brewed on the premises but with the improvement in transport connections during in Victorian times, large breweries that supplied many pubs were developed. In the cities this created the hey-day of Victorian public houses with ornate woodwork and glass, often referred to as "gin-palaces". To ensure that a pub would continue to purchase from a particular brewery the brewery owners started buying up pubs and enforcing their own poor standards and restricting choice. This lead to the introduction of so-called "keg"-beers (the most notorious of which was ''Watney's Red Barrel'') and the nadir for British pubs. A group of beer enthusiasts formed the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) to re-educated the general public to the delights of traditional beer and to fight the closure of small breweries and independent inns. Largely as a result of their efforts pubs are now obliged to offer ''guest beers'' from other brewers.

During the summer, pubs also offer chilled refreshing drinks like [[cider]] (alcoholic) and [[shandy]]. Modern pubs also now supply ice-cubes at no additional charge.

In olden times an inn would have offered food and lodgings as well as wines, beers and spirits. However, the custom declined so that most pubs only offered crisps (''U.S. potato chips''), salted peanuts and [[pork scratchings]]. Since the glorious{{fact}} revolution of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, pubs were allowed to sell proper{{fact}} food again and out of this has developed the gastro-pub where unique regional comestibles are offered to complement the ales.

[[Category:Buildings]]

Procreation

2007-08-07T00:26:52Z

John:

{{merge|sexual reproduction}}
== Procreation ==

'''Procreation''' is the process of conceiving and bearing offspring. It is the most essential activity of all forms of life, from the virus to man. In multicellular life (and even in some single-celled animals), procreation occurs as a result of sexual activity, in which genes are combined from a male and female of a species to produce offspring with hybrid vigor.

Some ancient{{fact}} philosophers believe that it is in man's nature to procreate as often as possible to ensure that his genetic traits are passed on. In nature this is apparent as many animals do not have just one mate. <ref>[http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/socsex.html | Social Basis of Human Sexuality]</ref>

==Religious View==
Many interpret the Bible and other holy scriptures to say that procreation in humans is a holy act only to be performed between a married man and woman. Its purpose it to further the races of God's children. Procreation is a natural act that is the act that occurs when a marriage is consummated.

==References==
<references/>

Soul

2007-08-07T00:20:04Z

John:

{{expand}}
The '''soul''' is a vital concept within many [[religion|religious]] traditions, including [[Christianity]]. The soul is considered to be the eternal element of an individual.

Most Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human [[will]], [[understanding]], [[morality]] and/or [[personality]].

Scientists generally ignore or dismiss the soul as unsuitable for study. To be precise, the [[methodological naturalism]] of modern science is unable to handle the concept of the soul. Anything which is not material is deliberately excluded{{fact}} from consideration, and as the soul is not a material thing scientists accordingly refuse to study it{{fact}}. This has implications for the study of human [[Psychology]]. There is also the question of when the soul enters the body, as this is important for the debate on [[abortion]] from a theological position.

It should be noted that there was once a study made at the turn of the 20th century of the loss of weight at the time of death. The scientist doing the measurements concluded that this loss of weight was due to the soul leaving the body. No known attempts to follow up his work have ever been made{{fact}}.

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Reincarnation

2007-08-07T00:18:23Z

John:

Reincarnation means "to come again in the flesh." Because of that interpretation, many reincarnation proponents claim that [[Jesus]] taught the doctrine to [[Nicodemus]] when he told him that he must be born again. If you study the entire conversation, however, it is clear that Jesus did not refer to reincarnation nor did Nicodemus misunderstand Him<ref>John 3</ref>. Another biblical doctrine misused{{fact}} to support the idea of reincarnation is Galatians 6:7b, which says, "A man reaps what he sows." This is considered to be "[[Karma]]," which is supposedly what determines the state of your next life. This is misapplied{{fact}} and is in direct conflict with Hebrews 9:27, which thoroughly refutes any possibility of reincarnation: "It is appointed unto man once to die and then comes the judgment."<ref>Hebrew 9:27</ref>

It is estimated that 36 percent of Americans think that reincarnation is possible{{fact}}. Many{{fact}} celebrities and prominent figures widely proclaim their belief in it{{fact}}. You will notice{{fact}}, though, that along with the belief in reincarnation come heretical{{fact}} beliefs or practices in [[astrology]]{{fact}}, Eastern meditation{{fact}}, and physics powers{{fact}}.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:religion]][[category:philosophy]]

Presuppositionalist Metaphysics

2007-08-07T00:14:26Z

John:

{{stub}}
'''Presuppositionalist Metaphysics''' holds that first principles should be discovered or known prior to developing an empirical method of inquiry. This is a time-honored [[philosophy]] that is still held by [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] the world over. In staunch contrast to presuppositionalism, [[logical positivism|logical positivists]] and [[pragmatism|pragmatists]] often seek, instead, to take the functionality of the empirical method as self-evident{{fact}}, and then infer ontological and cognitive stability from that. This is an effort, in both cases, to dispense with metaphysics in favor of the materialistic philosophy espoused by [[Karl Popper]] and [[Rudolf Carnap]]. This method can be subjected to two critiques: 1) We are still engaging in presuppositionalism since we're now presupposing{{fact}} that science works or 2) This is circular reasoning because the goal is to find an ontological structure in the world which will allow materialistic methods to work by assuming that the materialistic methods work.

Because apologists are often more careful in their philosophy{{fact}}, presuppositionalist metaphysics (being the only{{fact}} logical course of investigation in metaphysics) can then be used to infer a designer{{fact}}. If first principles are obtained, then we have either obtained them by divine inspiration, or by our own investigation. But to find them by our own investigation would require a functional method of empirical inquiry, which we cannot have without the first principles from which we might infer the appropriate method of empirical inquiry. So, if we are to have a functional empirical method, we must possess the first principles a priori -- thus they have been given to us by God{{fact}}. This is why [[creationism|creationists]] will often challenge [[darwinism|Darwinists]] on epistemological grounds -- the Darwinists have rigged the game by simply "defining away" the first principles which make knowledge possible while, for creationists, the methodology is based on the principles given by divine writ.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Duke Cunningham

2007-08-07T00:03:30Z

John: fact cite

'''Randall "Duke" Cunningham''', (born December 8, 1941, was a [[Republican]] congressman from [[California]]'s 50th district (northern [[San Diego]]) who resigned from the [[House of Representatives|House]] on November 28, 2005, when it was found that he had been receiving illicit bribes totally $2.4 million. This included receiving luxury gifts like a yacht (reportedly called the "Duke Stir") and expensive jewelry. Since he didn't report accepting bribes to the IRS, he underreported his income for 2004.

Cunningham denied the charges at first, but later came clean with a tearful and moving{{fact}} apology to his family, friends, and constituents. The bribes were received by Randall Cunningham in exchange for lucrative defense contracts for the Pentagon to local California contractors and businessmen. On March 3, 2006, he received a sentence of eight years and four months in prison and an order to pay $1.8 million in restitution<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/index.html</ref>.

Cunningham was succeeded by former congressman [[Brian Bilbray]], also a Republican, following a special election.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cunningham, Duke}}

[[Category:US Representative]]

Talk:Intellectual dishonesty

2007-07-23T20:05:34Z

John:

This is why I stick to categorization... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:01, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The Murray quote is a rather one-sided and narrow (and I don't mean politically, I mean in terms of the science on the issue) dialogue on the issues with IQ testing. I think an article on IQ testing should be created to rectify this, and I think this quote needs to be balanced or taken down.--[[User:John|John]] 16:05, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Intellectual dishonesty

2007-07-23T20:03:19Z

John: Cite this, or take it down.

'''Intellectual dishonesty''' is lying about one's own beliefs. Liberals, and those on the left generally, are more inclined to this form of [[deceit]] than conservatives{{fact}}.

[[Charles Murray]] wrote;
:In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially liberal ones, have two nasty secrets regarding [[IQ]]. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts. [http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html]

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Waterboarding

2007-07-23T19:28:45Z

John: /* Use of "Opponents of the US" phrase */

RobS, did you read the citation? It says "Mr Cheney implied that the technique - a form of simulated drowning - was used on the alleged September 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantánamo Bay."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, but this isn't Wikipedia. Under WP:Verifiability, you can add that kinda garbage despite the fact that the actual radio transcript PROVES it is a false citation from ''the Guardian'', as well as the other link that was removed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Show me the transcript.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Here. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I read it. He says, "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, '''that's been a very important tool''' that we've had to be able to secure the nation." I'm putting the line back, but with the quote. You'll like it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: I added this - "In a recent interview, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] described waterboarding as a "very important tool" in the interrogation of [[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]], but said that he did not consider it torture.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html</ref>." No doubt it's factual, it's straight from the interview. Cut out the middle man. Take that, BBC!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It reads,
:'''...our ability to interrogate..."'''; says nothing about waterboarding and continues with,
:"The Congress recently voted on this question of military commissions and '''our authority to continue the interrogation program'''. It passed both Houses, fortunately. The President signed it into law, but the fact is 177 Democrats in the House -- or excuse me, 162 Democrats in the House voted against it, and 32 out of 44 senators -- Democratic senators voted against it.
and as he concludes in the next sequence,
:" We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
So even as the ''Guardian'' stated, "implied" is clearly false. And the ''Christian Science Monitor'' article is pure defamatory, disinformation, wholey without a shred of credible merit, and patently false. Any claim on any subject from any of these organizations, or the authors involved, is henceforth suspect [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

He said, "we don't torture," because he doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Why would he say it was a "very important tool" in that investigation, had it not been used? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:The question posited by the host on behalf of listeners was
::'' if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we [the good folks in the Heartland] are all for it, '''if it saves American lives'''."
:''The Guardian'' conventiently left off both the hypothetical nature of the question, more specifically, and most importantly, ''the qualifier'', "'''if it saves American lives'''". Neither the "No brainer" headline they ran with, or the article abstract, carry the qualifier to the hypothetical, "torture is a no-brainer '''if it saves American lives'''." Thus by no tortured reasoning now can any of these sources, including the White House transcript, be used in this article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, why can't we use a White House transcript to say what Dick Cheney said? You seem to be slightly off base on a lot of these arguments, but I really fail to see why a primary source of what Dick Cheney said doesn't properly explain what Dick Cheney said.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have to agree w/ Ames on this one. Why can't a WH transcript suffice? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's too late. This is nothing more than an effort to defame a living person, and does not address the subject matter of this article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
To defame a living person with '''''what he said on the record?''''' Do you censor everything bad anyone you like does or says? Becuase I bet that keeps you busy - it'd keep me busy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:It does become a chore to defend against false defamations, having to prove a negative. Let's call it responding to left-wing McCarthyism and McCartyite-style smears. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
It becomes copious and valueless to fight with you on this topic. You seem unable to acknowledge the points presented against you. As such, it is a waste of my time. Could a ''reasonable sysop'' resolve this debate please?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry but I just have to disagree with you; simply because ''the Guardian'' and ''Christian Science Monitor'' peaked your interest in defaming Dick Cheney with bald face lies gives no reason whatsoever to keep talking about it. And rewarding readers with appetites for lies with more contortions to try and make these lies credible is scandalous, IMHO. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Perhaps both sides need to cool off. Ames, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Ed, I think you're right. Could you look at the debate, though? The question is whether a White House transcript of an interview with Dick Cheney may be used in an article on waterboarding.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==

Try [[Debate:Is waterboarding torture?]]. It might help to bring clarity of thinking. Then we can resume work on the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Ed, but that is not the issue here under discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, you mean I have to actually read all that talk above? :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I can summarize it. Two prominent mainstream publication printed false information with the express intent to defame the VP of the US. It has been proven false, with damage to those publications reputations. Discussing it any further serves no purpose, IMO. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought it was more, Rob and I disagree as to the interpretation of a VP's statements in a transcript. As a result, he would like to strike any mention of it from the article. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless it's an urgent matter, it might be preferable to let it go for a few days. We can always insert it later if the 3 of us can agree on a wording. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds cool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, none of its going in. And the case is laid out above, as well as in all the source material. We can rehash as much of it as you like, but in the end, none of it belongs here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

=="mildest forms of torture"==
Unless there is some citation for this, it should be removed. Torture is torture.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== I really don't understand... ==

CP believes in avoiding polite euphemisms, like "militants" for "terrorists." Why avoid the use of the word "torture?" There was a great article awhile back in, I think, the Atlantic (hold on for just a minute...) that was the argument in FAVOR of these kinds of techniques, but even the quotes from those in favor from inside the intelligence community called it "torture." [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:10, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==Use of "Opponents of the US" phrase==
Seriously, how does being opposed to waterboarding make one anti-American? Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, necessary or unneccesary, I find calling people opposed to waterboarding "opponents of the US" a moronic leap of illogic. Being opposed to waterboarding make one an opponent of waterboarding. Patriotism has nothing to do with it, and to try to frame all opponents of waterboarding as anti-Americans is inflammatory, untruthful, and simpleminded. --[[User:John|John]] 15:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*As a former Sysop here, John, one might think your language would be a bit more temperate. If you could save 100 lives, or 1000, by torturing someone, just one person, would you do it? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::What does that have to do with being an opponent of the US? Your response is irrelevant to the question I posed. I'm not talking about whether torture is effective, or whether it should be done. I'm talking about whether it's anti-American to hold views that differ from yours.--[[User:John|John]] 15:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Waterboarding

2007-07-23T19:18:37Z

John:

Waterboarding

2007-07-23T18:56:08Z

John: /* Controversy */ Being opposed to waterboarding does not make one an "opponent of the US.

'''Waterboarding''' is a method of interrogation that dates back to the time of the Italian Inquisition in the 1500s. A tightly bound prisoner has porous cloth placed over his mouth and nose. Water is poured over his face in such a manner as to convince the prisoner that he is drowning. Anonymous sources claim the practice was revived in the wake of [[9/11]] which then quickly attracted harsh criticism.

In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the [[Philippines]] during the [[Spanish-American War]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870</ref> In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labour for waterboarding a US civilian. It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam and a US soldier was court-martialed after ''The Washington Post'' (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html</ref> <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref>

== Controversy ==

Opponents of the procedure call it "torture" and want official definitions of [[torture]] changed so as to outlaw the technique.<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref> According to Chapter 18, section 2340 of the United States Legal Code, torture is defined as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."<ref>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html</ref> The [[United Nations]] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment classifies torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."<ref>http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category: Interrogation]]
[[Category: War]]
[[Category: Military Tactics]]

Presuppositionalist Metaphysics

2007-07-23T18:34:39Z

John:

{{stub}}
'''Presuppositionalist Metaphysics''' holds that first principles should be discovered or known prior to developing an empirical method of inquiry. This is a time-honored [[philosophy]] that is still held by [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] the world over. In staunch contrast to presuppositionalism, [[logical positivism|logical positivists]] and [[pragmatism|pragmatists]] often seek, instead, to take the functionality of the empirical method as self-evident, and then infer ontological and cognitive stability from that. This is an effort, in both cases, to dispense with metaphysics in favor of the materialistic philosophy espoused by [[Karl Popper]] and [[Rudolf Carnap]]. This method can be subjected to two critiques: 1) We are still engaging in presuppositionalism since we're now presupposing that science works or 2) This is circular reasoning because the goal is to find an ontological structure in the world which will allow materialistic methods to work by assuming that the materialistic methods work.

Because apologists are often more careful in their philosophy{{fact}}, presuppositionalist metaphysics (being the only logical course of investigation in metaphysics) can then be used to infer a designer. If first principles are obtained, then we have either obtained them by divine inspiration, or by our own investigation. But to find them by our own investigation would require a functional method of empirical inquiry, which we cannot have without the first principles from which we might infer the appropriate method of empirical inquiry. So, if we are to have a functional empirical method, we must possess the first principles a priori -- thus they have been given to us by God. This is why [[creationism|creationists]] will often challenge [[darwinism|Darwinists]] on epistemological grounds -- the Darwinists have rigged the game by simply "defining away" the first principles which make knowledge possible while, for creationists, the methodology is based on the principles given by divine writ.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:Wrathofgod64

2007-07-23T18:32:29Z

John: New page: Quality edits. Unfortunately, this is Conservapedia, not the real world, and they'll probably be gone in minutes. --~~~~

Quality edits. Unfortunately, this is Conservapedia, not the real world, and they'll probably be gone in minutes. --[[User:John|John]] 14:32, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Duke Cunningham

2007-07-23T18:13:24Z

John: cite facts

'''Randall "Duke" Cunningham''', (born December 8, 1941, was a [[Republican]] congressman from [[California]]'s 50th district (northern San Diego) who resigned from the House on November 28, 2005, when it was found that he had been receiving illicit bribes in total of at least $2 million, receiving luxury gifts like a yacht (reportedly called the "Duke Stir") and expensive jewelry, underreporting his income for 2004, and he may also have been treated to expensive weekend get aways at posh resorts with paid female prostitutes to accompany him. Cunningham denied the charges vehemently at first, but later came clean with a very heartfelt{{fact}} and tearful apology to his family, friends, and constituents. The bribes, gifts and comped treatment at the resorts were received by Randall Cunningham in exchange for lucrative defense contracts for the Pentagon to local California contractors and businessmen. On March 3, 2006, he received a sentence of eight years and four months in prison and an order to pay $1.8 million in restitution<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/index.html</ref>. Cunningham was succeeded by former congressman [[Brian Bilbray]], also a Republican, following a special election.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cunningham, Duke}}

[[Category:Political people]]

John Murtha

2007-07-23T18:03:13Z

John: /* Resolution reprimanding Murtha */

'''John Patrick “Jack” Murtha, Jr.''' (b. 1932) is a controversial United States Representative from Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district. A Democrat, he has gained national attention for his strong opposition against the [[War in Iraq]]

==Views on the 2003 Iraq War==
Murtha is well known for his stance against the war in Iraq. Although he voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq, he has now changed his mind and supports "a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable." On November of 2005, while standing behind seven American flags and a portrait of the late President [[John F. Kennedy]], Congressman Murtha touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.” On Meet the Press in June 2006, Murtha said that the United States should redeploy troops from Iraq to Japan's southernmost prefecture, Okinawa.

==Criticisms of the U.S. military==
Not only has Murtha been a critic of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has frequently criticized military leaders and U.S. troops. In November of 2005 Murtha claimed that U.S. Marines had killed innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha. "They killed innocent civilians in cold blood", Murtha said about the United States military. Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Murtha for character defamation during an ongoing investigation. Congressman Murtha has also publicly stated that "We've [American troops] have become the enemy."

==Abscam scandal==
Abscam was a major national scandal in 1980 that ultimately led to the conviction of a United States Senator, six members of the House of Representatives, the Mayor of Camden, [[New Jersey]], members of the Philadelphia City Council, and an inspector for the [[Immigration]] and Naturalization Service. The investigation entailed FBI operatives posing as intermediaries for Saudi nationals hoping to bribe their way through the immigration process into the United States. Murtha met with these operatives and was videotaped, where he said "I'm not interested... at this point. [If] we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't" to $50,000 of cash. He was never indicted or charged.

==Resolution reprimanding Murtha==
On 21 May 2007 Congressman Mike Rogers (R-PA) offered a resolution reprimanding Murtha for threatening Rogers' earmarks. Murtha made the threat after Rogers offered a motion to recommit the Intelligence Authorization Act to remove one of Murtha's earmarks. They had an argument about it on the House floor and Murtha was very confrontational{{fact}}.

==Race for Majority Leader==
After Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections for the first time in fourteen years, Representative Murtha made a run for House Majority Leader and was supported by incoming Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]] (D-CA). Despite Murtha claiming that he had enough votes to win the leadership position, he was defeated by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer by a margin of 149-86 within the caucus. He now serves as the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

[[Category:US Representative]]

The Daily Show

2007-07-23T18:02:14Z

John: /* Correspondents */

The Daily Show is a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It has won several awards, including a [[Peabody award]] and nine [[Emmy|Emmys]]<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>, and is known for its comedic satire of the news.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 Jon Stewart replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Stewart is best known as the host of Comedy Central's [[The Daily Show]]. He often mocks the President, the war in [[Iraq]], Congress, and foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which [[politicians]] look silly, often contradicting themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous.
== Correspondents ==

The comedians show a [[liberal bias]], and do different "news stories". These segments are usually aimed at poking humor at and satire of the political party in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights, [[pro-life]], or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" mocks [[religious]] values, and the true{{fact}}, living{{fact}} [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> Many would argue instead that this segment does not attempt to invalidate the values of Christianity or the true{{fact}} living{{fact}} God, but rather mocks a group of citizens exercising their constitutional rights{{fact}}.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml The official ''Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

[[category:television shows]]

The Daily Show

2007-07-23T18:01:26Z

John: /* Correspondents */

The Daily Show is a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It has won several awards, including a [[Peabody award]] and nine [[Emmy|Emmys]]<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>, and is known for its comedic satire of the news.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 Jon Stewart replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Stewart is best known as the host of Comedy Central's [[The Daily Show]]. He often mocks the President, the war in [[Iraq]], Congress, and foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which [[politicians]] look silly, often contradicting themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous.
== Correspondents ==

The comedians show a [[liberal bias]], and do different "news stories". These segments are usually aimed at poking humor at and satire of the political party in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights, [[pro-life]], or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" mocks [[religious]] values, and the true{{fact}}, living{{fact}} [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> Many would argue instead that this segment does not attempt to invalidate the values of Christianity or the true living God, but rather mocks a group of citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml The official ''Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

[[category:television shows]]

Doonesbury

2007-07-23T17:51:15Z

John: cite facts

'''Doonesbury''' is a comic strip created by Garry Trudeau and distributed by Universal Press Syndicate. Highly political in nature, Doonesbury definitely leans to the [[left]]{{fact}} but has, throughout its thirty-five year history, criticized politicians across the spectrum, from [[Richard Nixon]] and [[George Bush]] to [[Jimmy Carter]] and [[Bill Clinton]].

The strip's author is particularly interested in the soldiers that are currently fighting in [[Iraq]], and the strip generated a great deal of controversy when B.D., one of the main characters, lost a leg at [[Fallujah]]. Doonesbury went on to chronicle B.D.'s recovery process, and the strip's portrayal of the challenges faced by wounded veterans earned Trudeau - a strong critic of the politicians who started the war - The [[United States Army]]'s Commander's Award for Public Service.

Every [[Memorial Day]], Trudeau uses two or three Sunday comics to list the names of all the U.S. troops who have died in Iraq or [[Afghanistan]] the previous year.

==External Links==

[http://www.doonesbury.com Doonesbury]

[[Category:Comic Strips]]

Talk:Conservaphobia

2007-07-23T17:48:44Z

John:

Uh... is this a joke? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This would hardly fall in line with the psychological definition of a phobia. This looks like someone copied it out of a chain email.--[[User:John|John]] 13:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Phobia

2007-07-23T17:46:57Z

John:

{{stub}}
A '''phobia''' is an irrational fear of something.

[[category:phobias]]
[[category:psychology]]

Talk:Phobia

2007-07-23T17:46:30Z

John: New page: This article needs MAJOR, MAJOR improvement.--~~~~

This article needs MAJOR, MAJOR improvement.--[[User:John|John]] 13:46, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Godless liberal

2007-07-23T17:36:44Z

John:

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing liberals who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life, typical{{fact}} of Liberal [[Deceit]].

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner{{fact}}, trying to marginalize the true nature of the term{{fact}}.
[[category:politics]]

Godless liberal

2007-07-23T17:36:12Z

John:

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing liberals who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life, typcial of Liberal [[Deceit]].

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner, trying to marginalize the true nature of the term{{fact}}.
[[category:politics]]

Feminism

2007-07-22T17:11:56Z

John: /* History */

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for equal treatment and responsibilities for men and women, and boys and girls.

==History==

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required two-thirds majority on June 30, 1982. The majority of Americans felt that its passage would entail several consequences, including making girls subject to the military draft, the integration of single-sex schools, the possible recognition of homosexual marriage, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, but feminist leadership largely failed to criticize{{fact}} President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor{{fact}} and U.S. President{{fact}}.

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said <ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

<blockquote>"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref></blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.

Zen Buddhism

2007-07-22T17:05:22Z

John:

{{Merge|Chan Buddhism}}
{{Merge|Zen}}
{{Merge|Buddhism}}

Buddhism began with [[Siddhartha Gautama|Shakyamuni Buddha]], the founder, about 500 BC in Northern India. It emphasises meditation to realise the illusory nature of self and the eternal abiding reality of the Cosmic Buddha or 'Dharmakaya'. Buddhism moved from India to China due to the efforts of the monk Bodhidaruma (or 'Bodhidharma') who made the treacherous sea crossing to China. The Indian word for meditation 'Dhyana' was taken to describe the heart of the practise in China and the name 'Dhyana' was there pronounced 'Chan'. When Chan Buddhism was taken from China to Japan the word 'Chan' was pronounced 'Zen' in Japanese. There are several schools of Zen Buddhism in Japan: Soto, Rinzai, Obaku etc. Another name for the meditation which is the heart of the practise is 'Shikan Taza' which means 'Serene Relection' - a "seeing deeply into the nature of things".

[[Category:Buddhism]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2007-03-17T03:23:37Z

John: /* Personal Life */

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois, elected to the United States Senate in 2004 after serving as a state Senator. He is a candidate and Democratic front-runner for the 2008 United States Presidential election.

== Personal Life ==
Obama was born in [[Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961. His father was a [[Kenya|Kenyan]] former farmer, and his mother a US citizen from [[Kansas]]. His parents divorced when he was two, and Obama's mother remarried to an [[Indonesia|Indonesian]] man and relocated the family to [[Jakarta]]. From age ten he lived in Hawaii with his maternal grandparents, where he completed high school in 1979. Obama has a law degree from [[Harvard University]] and a BA from [[Columbia University]]. Until he entered politics in the 1990s, he was a senior lecturer in [[Constitution|constitutional]] law at the [[University of Chicago]].

Robert Byrd

2007-03-16T17:42:24Z

John: needs improvement, he's renounced his klan connections

{{stub}}
'''Robert Byrd''' (born 1917) is a Democratic Senator from [[West Virginia]] who is infamous for having been in the Ku Klux Klan where he reached the rank of [[Exalted Cyclops]]. He is currently the oldest member of [[Congress]], [[President pro tempore]] of the US Senate, and is the longest-serving [[Senator]] in history, having been first elected in 1959.

He is third in line to the [[President of the United States|Presidency]] behind [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker]] [[Nancy Pelosi]].

{{stub}}

Conservative Party (UK)

2007-03-16T17:40:22Z

John: Tory

The British Conservative Party, commonly nicknamed the Tory Party after their political ancestors, is the major right wing party of the [[United Kingdom]]. Its leader is [[David Cameron]].

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-16T17:39:13Z

John: Reverted edits by Ender (Talk); changed back to last version by Karajou

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

France

2007-03-16T17:38:54Z

John: really bad article

{{stub}}
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

[[Image:map_of_france.jpg]]

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and postmodernism. Its own colonial behavior and the treatment of non-French soldiers has been criticized. Racial distinctions were made between “French soldiers” and “Soldiers of France”. It maintains the vetistiges of [[Imperialism]] with the CFA (African France) in much of west and central Africa.It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France did not participate in the alliance to remove the [[Baathist]] regime in Iraq notable for human rights violations prompting heavy backlash and criticism from the American people, and causing them to question whether France's status as a U.S. ally had been undermined.

[[Category:Countries]]

User talk:BRussell

2007-03-16T17:29:19Z

John:

Higher quality edits please, Bertrand. --[[User:John|John]] 13:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang theory

2007-03-16T17:27:48Z

John: Reverted edits by BRussell (Talk); changed back to last version by Tsumetai

{{stub}}
The '''Big Bang Theory''' models the Universe as expanding outwards from a very hot, dense state approximately 14 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation. This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref>. Modern galaxy surveys[https://www.sdss.org/dr5]<ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/]<ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists hotly contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22]
[http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22]
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html], though no such criticisms have been published in peer-review scientific journals. Young earth creationist use the Bible, which they believe to be a literal truth, to trace lineages to estimate the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years. This idea might be true, but does not conflict with Big Bang Theory because the young earth creationist cosmology is non-scientific (in the sense that it does not offer mathematical or logical models which make definite, testable predictions and describe or account for observated phenomena).

In contrast to young earth creationists, [[Old Earth Creationists|Old Earth Creationists]] and [[Theistic Evolution|Theistic evolutionists]] agree that the Big Bang occured.[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/]. Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionist argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. [http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

AC

2007-03-16T17:12:13Z

John:

In [[electrical engineering]], AC stands for Alternating Current. An AC signal has a non-zero [[frequency]].

Also, "AC" is an abbreviation for [[air conditioner]].

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

2007-03-16T17:10:32Z

John: improved links, npov

The '''Guantanamo Bay detention camp''' is a prison of the [[United States of America]] in [[Cuba]]. In this prison, the people being held are accused by the US government of [[terrorism]]. The [[liberal]] organization Center for Constitutional Rights is organizing attorneys to file habeas corpus petitions in the Washington, D.C., federal court on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=pQOvjcVXXK&Content=406]

Some liberal groups have accused the US of practicing [[torture]] at Gitmo, such as cold-hot shock rooms, electrical shocks, simulated drowning, food and water deprivation, chaining, forced walking on broken glass and barbed wire, and psychological torture.{{fact}} Some conservatives have made similar allegations [http://dailydish.typepad.com/the_daily_dish/2006/03/does_this_count.html]. Media has not been allowed access to the detention center, and the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] adminstration has said that its interrogation techniques are vital tools for winning the [[War on Terror]]{{fact}}.

User talk:Positive Natural Selection

2007-03-16T17:07:21Z

John:

Decent edits, but more citations would be useful. Also, a more formal tone could really improve things. Citations are pretty much a necessity on any controversial edits if you want them to stick. --[[User:John|John]] 13:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Voter fraud

2007-03-16T16:51:36Z

John:

Not sure why you changed my edits. Isn't there a lot of evidence about the democrats carrying out voter fraud? --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 12:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Do you have references to back up such a claim? And what about Republican voter fraud? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 12:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Then cite it, and cite it extensively. If there's "a lot of evidence" then it shouldn't be hard. The wording is also deeply biased--it's not like Republicans are innocent on the matter. International voter fraud would also be useful. --[[User:John|John]] 12:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Voter fraud

2007-03-16T16:45:52Z

John: Reverted edits by Raytrotter (Talk); changed back to last version by MountainDew

Voter fraud includes voting in the name of people who have died, or moved away, or already voted in the same election in another state, or are otherwise ineligible to vote. Estimates of the amount of voter fraud are as much as a percentage point or more in an election. It can change the outcome of a close election.

Some areas, such as Chicago, Illinois, are notorious for having rampant voter fraud. The greater the power of a political machine, the higher the risk for substantial voter fraud.

But even areas not known for voter fraud have unexplained discrepancies between voter registration lists and estimates of the number of eligible voters. In Indiana, for example, one expert estimated that there were 1.3 million more names on the registration rolls than there were eligible voters in the state. Indiana enacted a law requiring display of a photo ID by most voters prior to voting, Ind. Code 3-5-2-40.5, and the constitutionality of this law was upheld on appeal in ''Crawford v. Marion County Election Board'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 110 (7th Cir. Jan. 4, 2007).

Antitrust law

2007-03-16T16:42:56Z

John:

Antitrust law consists of federal and state rules to maintain competition and prevent or limit [[monopoly|monopolies]].

The major antitrust laws are the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]] (1890), the [[Clayton Antitrust Act]] (1914), the [[Federal Trade Commission Act]] (1914) and the [[Robinson-Patman Act]] (1936).

[[Category:United States law]]

Anatolia

2007-03-16T16:40:41Z

John:

Anatolia was the ancient term for what is now [[Turkey]].
{{stub2}}

Copts

2007-03-16T16:34:55Z

John: Reverted edits by Lolinternet (Talk); changed back to last version by SharonS

The Copts are [[Egypt]]ian [[Christian]]s belonging to the [[Coptic Church]]. About seven million people, nine percent of the Egyptian population, are Copts. The Coptic Church is the largest Christian group in Middle East.

Magna Carta

2007-03-16T04:45:07Z

John: Reverted edits by Omnijohn (Talk); changed back to last version by N

A great charter issued in AD 1215, which among other things, limited the power of the English king and guaranteed rights to the nobles.

[[Category:History]]

Democracy

2007-03-16T04:44:03Z

John: Reverted edits by Omnijohn (Talk); changed back to last version by TimSvendsen

'''Democracy''' is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (rule). Although it is a very broad classification, democracy is generally understood to refer to [[representative]], [[liberal]] democracy, in which the government is made up of ''representatives'' of the people, who are charged with the protection of ''liberties''.

Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state.

Africa

2007-03-16T04:41:10Z

John:

{{stub}}

Africa is the continent south of [[Europe]] and southwest of [[Asia]].
To minimize armed conflict the Europeans held the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 to divide Africa among them, without regard to what the tribes of Africa wanted. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were also ignored, and lines of demarcation were arbitrarily drawn for the sole benefit of the European nations. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which successful resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia were divided and taken by European nations.

One of Africa’s Biggest and wealthiest countries today is South Africa, located on the southern tip of the continent. It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry completely ruled South Africa until the late 1900s. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups. The World Cup (soccer) will be played in 2010 in South Africa, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.

The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indiana Ocean. The Dutch exploited the labor of African slaves and set up farming communities that displaced the native Africans. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch slavery system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created further conflict with the native Africans.

In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power. By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.

The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this brutal war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.

European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works. This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.

==References==
Congo Free State Genocide[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Congo]

Africa

2007-03-16T04:40:27Z

John: Reverted edits by Sevenstring (Talk); changed back to last version by Stof

{{stub}}

Africa is the continent south of [[Europe]] and southwest of [[Asia]].
To minimize armed conflict the Europeans held the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 to divide Africa among them, without regard to what the tribes of Africa wanted. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were also ignored, and lines of demarcation were arbitrarily drawn for the sole benefit of the European nations. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which successful resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia where divided and taken by European nations.

One of Africa’s Biggest and wealthiest countries today is South Africa, located on the southern tip of the continent. It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry completely ruled South Africa until the late 1900s. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups. The World Cup (soccer) will be played in 2010 in South Africa, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.

The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indiana Ocean. The Dutch exploited the labor of African slaves and set up farming communities that displaced the native Africans. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch slavery system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created further conflict with the native Africans.

In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power. By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.

The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this brutal war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.

European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works. This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.

==References==
Congo Free State Genocide[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Congo]

Australia

2007-03-16T04:29:40Z

John: Reverted edits by Block (Talk); changed back to last version by Happy Chappy

Australia is part of [[Oceania]], and a largely secular nation. As a secular nation it does not have a "national" religion and it accepts citizens of a variety of creeds and faiths, just as the USA. It is about 7,500 miles from the [[United States]]. The mainland of Australia is about the same size as mainland USA - exluding Alaska. Australia has six states and two territories. The states are Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. The territories are the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory which is the location of Australia's capital city: Canberra.

Australia was originally inhabited by people who are commonly known as Aborigines although they come from a number of smaller "nations" and "tribes." Over time many of these nations and tribes lost their identity or were decimated by disease, poor nutrition, massacres by white settlers and the forced removal of children from their parents into white families or mission stations. Many indigenous languages and traditions have survived the more than 200 years of white settlement. Indigenous communities now have the right to claim back land dispossessed from them where they can prove that lasting cultural links still persist and where the native title has not been extinguished by freehold or leasehold title.

The mainland of Australia was found by Dutch sailors heading to the spice island of Indonesia in the 16th Century. Most of their descriptions of Australia are based on the exploration of the north west coast which is very rugged and inhospitable. It wasn't until 1770 that Captain James Cook from the England discovered the east coast of Australia which is much more capable of maintaining life and settlers. In 1788 the First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove, New South Wales - comprising of officers, some free settlers and convicts. A number of later fleets settled convict areas around what is now Sydney Harbour.

As the 18th century came to a close convicts were given land packages and more free settlers came to the land in the hope of setting up farms and businesses. A number of colonies started to be formed - the two most populated being New South Wales (capital city of Sydney) and Victoria (capital city of Melbourne). These colonies later became the states.

The 1850s saw the discovery of gold and large number of people moved to Victoria to find new wealth - prospectors from China and the USA came in the hope of prosperity. Eventually this wealth helped build the great cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Ballarat and Bendigo. Australia become a federated country in 1901 with its parliament sitting in Melbourne, Victoria, while the capital city of Canberra was being built. Australia has a parliamentary system of government based on the British system with two law making houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state also has their own parliament. Australia is a democracy which has allowed men and women or European descent to vote since federation, with Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Its Head of Government is called the Prime Minister; at the moment he is the leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard. The Head of State is the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain), who acts through the Governor-General.

Strangley enough the Liberal Party, who have ruled in Australia since 1996 are actually conservative. They take on the name Liberal to indicate their belief in free trade and lack of government interference in business and day to day life. The more liberal (in terms of USA speak) party is the Labor Party whose leader is Kevin Rudd. The Labor Party are social democrats while the Liberals are liberal conservatives.

Australia relies a great deal on industry, agriculture and tourism to foster its economny. It has a thriving film industry and very advanced technology. Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

80% of Australia's population, of just over 20,000,000 people, live on the coast line. It is one of the world's least densely populated countries. Despite the low population water is scarce and most cities have some form of water restrictions in place to allow for basics such as washing and drinking. Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s (Celcius scale is used in the rest of the world) which is about 120 F. The city of Darwin was destoyed by a cyclone in 1974 and bushfires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occuring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2000 homes were destoyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia.

Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. There is plenty of flora and fauna there that is unique to Australia. The amazing thing about Australian native animals like the koala and the kangaroo is that they have the amazing ability to adapt to living in densely populated urban areas. Kangaroos are frequently sighted roaming the streets of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.

[[Category:Countries]]

Talk:War on Terror

2007-03-16T04:27:39Z

John:

Question: (A) What are robust surveying methods? (B) Isn't ''Nature'' the same magazine that says Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britanica? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will end when all terror has been eradicated from the Earth? Are you kidding me? --[[User:John|John]] 00:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

War on Terror

2007-03-16T04:27:01Z

John: Reverted edits by CEinhorn (Talk); changed back to last version by RobS

{{stub}}

=='''The War on Terror'''==
The War on Terror (or War on Terrorism) refers to the campaign waged by the [[United States of America]] and a coalition of willing allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The war was launched in response to the [[9/11]] [[al-Qaeda]] attacks on the United States.

==Overview==

==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===

The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a "coalition of the willing" invaded [[Iraq ]]to overthrow [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Baathist regime.

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the [[Ba'athist]] regime.

==References==
<references/>

===Second Lebanon War===

The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===

The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]].

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

2007-03-16T04:24:25Z

John:

The Eastern Orthodox Church did NOT split from Rome. Rather, Rome split from the four other major patriarchates (who had the most number of Christians).

Furthermore, the Orthodox Church does NOT allow priests to marry, but married men may become deacons and priests. Once ordained, a man may not marry without being deposed. Bishops are chosen from the unmarried clergy, who may be widowers or monks (or frequently both).

Changing the founding date to AD29 is a bit simplistic. A section tracing its origins to that period would be useful. --[[User:John|John]] 00:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)