Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Nostradamus

2011-04-23T03:31:20Z

KNorris:

Michel de Nostredame, or '''Nostradamus''', (December 14, 1503 – July 1, 1566) was a [[France|French]] physician and author widely known for his prophecies. He recorded these predicitions in a four line rhyming verse called the quatrains, grouped in sets of 100 called centuries, 1000 quatrains in total. He wrote in his native French but to protect himself from witch hunters and religious persecution, he would confuse his verse with [[Latin]], Greek, [[Italian]] and anagrams.

==Early Life==
Nostradamus was born in the south of France, Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, a son of the village notary. They were a [[Jewish]] family that converted to [[Christianity]] during the times of the [[Inquisition]]. He was schooled in the Classics, Sciences and Astrology. At age fifteen, he studied at University of Avignon. Nostradamus received his doctorate in medicine from the University of Montpellier. He married and had two children. His family would die in the plague that ravaged Europe at the time. Nostradamus would remarry and his new wife bore him six children. As a doctor, word would spread of his great healing abilities.

==Early Writings==
Nostradamus began his writings and published his the first almanac in 1550. It was very successful and he would write two annually. He wrote at least two books on medical science. Under the aegis of Michel Chomarat, he would write manuscripts of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

==Prophecies==
Then came the quatrains, written in a book titled "Les Propheties" (The Prophecies). He received a mixed reaction to these with people calling him evil and insane. Others, notably the elite of the day, thought these were spiritual. To this very day, his works are still published and reactions have not changed much since. Many misquotes and hoaxes are attributed to Nostradamus. Many scholars point out that his prophecies of the future are retroactive clairvoyance, only compared after events have already taken place.

Nostradamus was sought out by royalty of his day for his predictions. Some of his most intriguing predictions were not in book form. One story has him at a banquent where the host tries to trick him. The host tells him he has a white pig and a black pig. He is asked to choose which one will be served. Upon knowing his answer- the black pig, the host instructs the cook to prepare the white pig. During the meal the host asks again which pig was chosen. Again he replied the black pig. Then the host brings in the chef to tell him which pig was cooked. The cook says the white pig fell from the table and was devoured by dogs and that the black pig was served. His earliest known prediction was religious. In his youth he saw a young Fransican friar and paid homage by kneeling and kissing his robe. Asked why he was paying such duty to a lowly friar he responded, "He must kiss the robes of his holiness the Pope." Many years after Nostradamus's death, the young friar became Pope Sixtus V. <ref>The Man Who Saw Tomorrow, 1981 documentary</ref> It is said that he predicted his own death and the day his tomb would be violated, May 1791.

Many events four hundreds years later can be attributed to Nostradamus predictions, such as the rise of [[Napoleon]] and [[Hitler]]. His writings would be used as propaganda by the [[Nazi]]'s. Goebells used the quatrains showing the defeat of the French in [[World War II]]. His 21st century visions include the rise of the third anti-Christ, from the Kingdom of Mohammed with worldwide death and destruction. After his defeat, a universal peace of 1000 years. In a letter to his son, he would write that the end of the world would take place in 3797.

==Conclusion==
He was known to be a strong believer in the Lord from his youth. We are taught that only [[God]] knows the date of the end of the world. His ways are considered to be of the [[occult]]. Many of Nostradamus's predictions have turned out to be wrong. Even today, he is seen as a great prophet and a false prophet.

Nostradamus was buried in the Franciscan chapel in Salon but later moved to the Collégiale Saint-Laurent.

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:French People]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT
|}

Republican Party

2011-04-23T03:30:51Z

KNorris:

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Reince Priebus]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Classical Liberalism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' or informally the '''GOP''' (short for Grand Old Party), is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The Republican Party is [[pro-life]], while the [[Democratic Party]] is [[pro-abortion]].

In the past, the Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen, military veterans and evangelical Protestants. Some groups have realigned: blacks went from the GOP to the Democrats in the 1930s, while white Southerners became Republicans in the 1980s. Catholics switched from 80% Democratic in 1960 to 50-50 in recent years, primarily due to the embrace of [[abortion]] by the Democrats. In recent years youth and better educated professionals have moved to the Democrats, while blue collar workers have become more Republican, again due to the abortion issue.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth Party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP.

18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. The party's most recent candidate [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], together with his running mate Alaska Governor [[Sarah Palin]], lost the 2008 presidential election to Democrat [[Barack Obama]] and his running mate [[Joe Biden]].

== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]

The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]], published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in some Midwestern states was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. The eagle still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy, especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased [[federal funding]] for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref>

== History ==
[[File:GOP-presidents.jpg|thumb|300px|GOP Presidents by Andy Thomas; clockwise from far right: Nixon, Ford, Lincoln, GHW Bush, Reagan, GW Bush, Eisenhower, Roosevelt]]
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 11 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].

===Third Party System: 1854-1894===
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.

====Issues: Slavery====
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref>

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref>

The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes.

====Modernization====
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.
====Ethnocultural voting====
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref>

====Politics 1854-1860====
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
{{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}
{{See also|Third Party System}}

====Civil War: 1861-1865====
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.

====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.

Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.

Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134]

Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)

====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888.

As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====

From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them.

Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref> See Kleppner (1979)</ref>
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920.

====McKinley and realignment====
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy.

McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.

====Roosevelt and Progressivism====
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]].

Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals.

Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908.

====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====

The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty.

The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened.

Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.

====State and local politics====
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes.

====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds.

The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans.

The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide.

Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan).

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.

====Strength of Parties 1977====
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:

{| class=wikitable
! Party
! Republican
! Democratic
! Independent
|-
! Party ID (Gallup)
| 22%
| 47%
| 31%
|-
! Congressmen
| 181
| 354
|
|-
! House
| 143
| 292
|
|-
! Senate
| 38
| 62
|
|-
! % House popular vote nationally
| 42%
| 56%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 41%
| 57%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 37%
| 62%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 47%
| 52%
| 1%
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 43%
| 55%
| 2%
|-
! Governors
| 12
| 37
| 1
|-
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators
| 2,370
| 5,128
| 55
|-
| 31%
| 68%
| 1%
|-
! State legislature control
| 18
| 80
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 5
| 13
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 0
| 32
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 5
| 17
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 8
| 18
| 0
|-
! States' one party control of legislature and governorship
| 1
| 29
| 0
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.

Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6

====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]].
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.

====Suburbia====
The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp.
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref>

An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref>

====Rise of the right====
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South.

As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970.

With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref>

====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs.

The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref>

===Reagan Era===

In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present), he inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defense spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], won 251 Electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote to Bush's 51%. It was the first time anyone won a popular majority since 1988. 2004 marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.
==2009==
After smashing defeats in 2006 and 2008, the GOP lost control of Congress, the White House, and many states. They confront president who still retains some popularity, but have been able to chip away at support for his domestic policies, as the [[recession of 2008]] continues to drag on. In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. But with a positive job approval rating of 51% , Obama has the backing of most Democrats, even as Republicans turn negative, with only 23% supporting him. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies remains high at 57-59%. Meanwhile the GOP weaknesses were glaring: the June poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28% of Americans, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57% said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.<ref> [Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman, "Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?th&emc=th ''New York Times'' June 17, 2009]</ref>

== GOP (Frisbee team) ==

The term GOP may also refer to one of the frisbee teams of Carleton College, located in Northfield, MN.[https://apps.carleton.edu/campus/rec/club/?item_id=43089]

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==Notable Republicans==
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974), Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924), Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]
*[[Richard Nixon]] (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals
*[[Theodore Roosevelt]], President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Charles Sumner]] (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover
*[[Robert Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful; leader of conservatives
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s
*[[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1890-1969), President of United States, (1953-1961)
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]], President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)
*[[George H.W. Bush]], President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)
*[[George W. Bush]], President of the United States, (2001 - 2009)
*[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008
*[[Sarah Palin]], Vice-presidential nominee, 2008
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], Governor of California

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Bibliography==
===Historical===
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp.
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995),
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition]
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography
===Since 1980===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp.
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp.
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp.
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp.
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Modernization]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT
|}

Libya

2011-04-23T03:30:19Z

KNorris:

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT THIS IS BULLSHlT
|}</div>{{country
|name=''الجماهيرية العربية الليبية الشعبية الاشتراكية العظمى '''al-jamāhīriyyatu l-`arabiyyatu l-lībiyyatu š-ša`biyyatu l-ištirākiyyatu l-`uZmà''
|map=Libya rel 93.JPG
|map2=Libya location.png
|flag=Flag of Libya.png
|arms=Arms of Libya.png
|capital=Tripoli
|government=Authoritarian
|language=Arabic, Italian, English
|president-raw=[[Muammar al-Gaddafi|Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi]]
|area=679,359 sq. mi.
|pop=6,036,914
|pop-basis=(2007 estimate)
|gdp=72.7 billion
|gdp-year=(2007 estimate)
|gdp-pc=$12,300
}}
'''Libya''' (Arabic الجماهيرية العربية الليبية الشعبية الإشتراكية العظم ''Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya'') is a country in northern [[Africa]]. The country is officially a [[Democracy]], has been described as a [[Socialism|Socialist state]], and is in practice a [[Military Junta]]. The country borders the [[Mediterranean Sea]] to the north, [[Egypt]] to the east, [[Sudan]] to the southeast, [[Chad]] and [[Niger]] to the south, [[Algeria]] to the west, and [[Tunisia]] to the northwest. The country has been led by [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]] since 1969, who seized power in a military coup.

==People==
[[File:Lybian people.jpg|left|280px]]
Libya has a small population in a large land area. Population density is about 50 persons per sq. km. (80/sq. mi.) in the two northern regions of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, but falls to less than one person per sq. km. (1.6/sq. mi.) elsewhere. Ninety percent of the people live in less than 10% of the area, primarily along the coast. More than half the population is urban, mostly concentrated in the two largest cities, Tripoli and Benghazi. Thirty-three percent of the population is estimated to be under age 15.

Native Libyans are primarily a mixture of Arabs and Berbers. Small Tebou and Touareg tribal groups in southern Libya are nomadic or semi-nomadic. Among foreign residents, the largest groups are citizens of other African nations, including North Africans (primarily Egyptians and Tunisians), West Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
*Population (July 2007 est.): 6,036,914 (includes non-nationals, of which an estimated 500,000 or more are sub-Saharan Africans living in Libya).
*Annual growth rate (2007 est.): 2.262%. Birth rate (2007 est.)--26.09 births/1,000 population. Death rate (2007 est.)--3.47 deaths/1,000 population.
*Ethnic groups: Berber and Arab 97%; Greeks, Maltese, Italians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Turks, Indians, and Tunisians.
*Religion: Sunni Muslim 97%.
*Languages: Arabic is the primary language. English, French, and Italian are understood in major cities.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance--90%. Literacy (age 15 and over who can read and write)--total population 82.6%; female 72% (2003 est.).
*Health (2007 est.): Infant mortality rate--22.82 deaths/1,000 live births. Life expectancy--total population 76.88 yrs.; male 74.1 yrs.; female 78.58 yrs.
*Work force (2006 est.): 1.787 million, an estimated 500,000 of whom are sub-Saharan African foreign workers.

==Government and Political Conditions==
Libya's political system is in theory based on the political philosophy in Gaddafi's Green Book, which combines socialist and Islamic theories and rejects parliamentary democracy and political parties. In reality, Gaddafi exercises near total control over major government decisions. For the first seven years following the revolution, Colonel Gaddafi and 12 fellow army officers, the Revolutionary Command Council, began a complete overhaul of Libya's political system, society and economy. In 1973, he announced the start of a "cultural revolution" in schools, businesses, industries, and public institutions to oversee administration of those organizations in the public interest. On March 2, 1977, Gaddafi convened a General People's Congress (GPC) to proclaim the establishment of "people's power," change the country's name to the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and to vest, theoretically, primary authority in the GPC.
[[File:Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi in Dimashq.jpg|thumb|left|Muammar Gaddafi.]]
The GPC is the legislative forum that interacts with the General People's Committee, whose members are secretaries of Libyan ministries. It serves as the intermediary between the masses and the leadership and is composed of the secretariats of some 600 local "basic popular congresses." The GPC secretariat and the cabinet secretaries are appointed by the GPC secretary general and confirmed by the annual GPC congress. These cabinet secretaries are responsible for the routine operation of their ministries, but Gaddafi exercises real authority directly or through manipulation of the peoples and revolutionary committees.

Gaddafi remained the de facto chief of state and secretary general of the GPC until 1980, when he gave up his office. Although he holds no formal office, Gaddafi exercises power with the assistance of a small group of trusted advisers, who include relatives from his home base in the Sirte region, which lies between the traditional commercial and political power centers in Benghazi and Tripoli.

In the 1980s, competition grew between the official Libyan Government and military hierarchies and the revolutionary committees. An abortive coup attempt in May 1984, apparently mounted by Libyan exiles with internal support, led to a short-lived reign of terror in which thousands were imprisoned and interrogated. An unknown number were executed. Gaddafi used the revolutionary committees to search out alleged internal opponents following the coup attempt, thereby accelerating the rise of more radical elements inside the Libyan power hierarchy.

In 1988, faced with rising public dissatisfaction with shortages in consumer goods and setbacks in Libya's war with Chad, Gaddafi began to curb the power of the revolutionary committees and to institute some domestic reforms. The regime released many political prisoners and eased restrictions on foreign travel by Libyans. Private businesses were again permitted to operate.

In the late 1980s, Gaddafi began to pursue an anti-Islamic fundamentalist policy domestically, viewing fundamentalism as a potential rallying point for opponents of the regime. Gaddafi's security forces launched a preemptive strike at alleged coup plotters in the military and among the Warfallah tribe in October 1993. Widespread arrests and government reshufflings followed, accompanied by public "confessions" from regime opponents and allegations of torture and executions. The military, once Gaddafi's strongest supporters, became a potential threat in the 1990s. In 1993, following a failed coup attempt that implicated senior military officers, Gaddafi began to purge the military periodically, eliminating potential rivals and inserting his own loyal followers in their place.

The Libyan court system consists of three levels: the courts of first instance; the courts of appeals; and the Supreme Court, which is the final appellate level. The GPC appoints justices to the Supreme Court. Special "revolutionary courts" and military courts operate outside the court system to try political offenses and crimes against the state. "People's courts," another example of extrajudicial authority, were abolished in January 2005. Libya's justice system is nominally based on Sharia law.

===Principal Government Officials===
*De facto Head of State--Mu'ammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi ("the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution")
*Secretary General of the General People's Committee (Prime Minister)--Dr. Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmudi
*Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation (Foreign Minister)--Abd al-Rahman Shalgham
*Charge d'Affaires, Libyan Embassy, Washington, DC--Ambassador Ali Aujali

===Foreign Relations===
Libya was the first nation to recognize the [[United States]] in 1790.

Since 1969, Gaddafi has determined Libya's foreign policy. His principal foreign policy goals have been Arab unity, elimination of Israel, advancement of Islam, support for Palestinians, elimination of outside--particularly Western--influence in the Middle East and Africa, and support for a range of "revolutionary" causes.

After the 1969 coup, Gaddafi closed American and British bases on Libyan territory and partially nationalized all foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya. He also played a key role in promoting the use of oil embargoes as a political weapon for challenging the West, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in 1973 would persuade the West--especially the United States--to end support for Israel. Gaddafi rejected both Soviet communism and Western capitalism, and claimed he was charting a middle course.
[[File:Oasis in Libya.JPG|left|280px]]
Libya's relationship with the former Soviet Union involved massive Libyan arms purchases from the Soviet bloc and the presence of thousands of east bloc advisers. Libya's use--and heavy loss--of Soviet-supplied weaponry in its war with Chad was a notable breach of an apparent Soviet-Libyan understanding not to use the weapons for activities inconsistent with Soviet objectives. As a result, Soviet-Libyan relations reached a nadir in mid-1987.

After the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, Libya concentrated on expanding diplomatic ties with Third World countries and increasing its commercial links with Europe and East Asia. Following the imposition of UN sanctions in 1992, these ties significantly diminished. Following a 1998 Arab League meeting in which fellow Arab states decided not to challenge UN sanctions, Gaddafi announced that he was turning his back on pan-Arab ideas, which had been one of the fundamental tenets of his philosophy.

Instead, Libya pursued closer bilateral ties, particularly with North African neighbors Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. It has also sought to develop its relations with Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to Libyan involvement in several internal African disputes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Libya has also sought to expand its influence in Africa through financial assistance, ranging from aid donations to impoverished neighbors such as Niger to oil subsidies to Zimbabwe, and through participation in the African Union. Gaddafi has proposed a borderless "United States of Africa" to transform the continent into a single nation-state ruled by a single government. This plan has been greeted with skepticism. Libya has played a helpful role in facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance to Darfur refugees in Chad.

One of the longest-standing issues in Libya's relationship with the European Union and the international community was resolved in July 2007 with the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who had been convicted in 1999 of deliberately infecting over 400 children in a Benghazi hospital with the HIV virus. The six medics were sentenced to death in 2004, a sentence that was upheld by the Libyan Supreme Court but commuted in July 2007 by the Higher Judicial Council to life in prison. Under a previous agreement with the Bulgarian Government on the repatriation of prisoners, the medics were allowed to return to Bulgaria to finish their sentence, where upon arrival the Bulgarian president pardoned all six. The Benghazi International Fund, established by the United States and its European allies, raised $460 million to distribute to the families of the children infected with HIV, each of whom received $1 million.

====Terrorism====
[[File:Cockpit Nose section of Clipper Maid of the Seas.jpg|thumb|250px|Cockpit of Clipper "Maid of the Seas" (Pan Am 103).]]
Libya has taken significant steps to mend its international image and formally renounced terrorism in a letter to the UN Security Council in August 2003. In 1999, the Libyan government surrendered two Libyans suspected of involvement in the Pan Am 103 bombing, leading to the suspension of UN sanctions. On January 31, 2001, a Scottish court seated in the Netherlands found one of the suspects, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, guilty of murder in connection with the bombing, and acquitted the second suspect, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhima. Megrahi's conviction was upheld on March 14, 2002, but an appeals hearing was granted in June 2007 by the Scottish High Court.

UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003 following Libyan compliance with its remaining UNSCR requirements on Pan Am 103, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation. Libya paid compensation in 1999 for the death of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy in Tripoli, and paid damages to the families of the victims in the bombing of UTA Flight 772. With the lifting of UN sanctions in September 2003, each of the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 received $4 million of a maximum $10 million in compensation. After the lifting of U.S. IEEPA-based sanctions on September 20, 2004, the families received a further $4 million.

On November 13, 2001, a German court found four persons, including a former employee of the Libyan embassy in East Berlin, guilty in connection with the 1986 La Belle disco bombing, in which two U.S. servicemen were killed. The court also established a connection to the Libyan government. The German Government demanded that Libya accept responsibility for the La Belle bombing and pay appropriate compensation. A compensation deal for non-U.S. victims was agreed to in August 2004. U.S. victims continue to pursue their claims in federal court.

By 2003, Libya appeared to have curtailed its support for international terrorism, although it may have retained residual contacts with some of its former terrorist clients. In August 2004, the Department of Justice entered into a plea agreement with Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in which he stated that he had been part of a 2003 plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah (now King Abdallah) at the behest of Libyan government officials.

In 2005, the Saudi Government pardoned the individuals accused in the assassination plot. During the 2005 UN General Assembly session, Foreign Minister Shalgam issued a statement that reaffirmed Libya's commitment to the statements made in its letter addressed to the Security Council on August 15, 2003, renouncing terrorism in all its forms and pledging that Libya will not support acts of international terrorism or other acts of violence targeting civilians, whatever their political views or positions. Libya also expressed its commitment to continue cooperating in the international fight against terrorism. On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.

===Relations with the United States===

The United States supported the UN resolution providing for Libyan independence in 1951 and raised the status of its office at Tripoli from a consulate general to a legation. Libya opened a legation in Washington, DC, in 1954. Both countries subsequently raised their missions to embassy level.
[[File:Tripoli Libya.JPG|thumb|left|300px|Tripoli.]]
After Gaddafi's 1969 coup, U.S.-Libyan relations became increasingly strained because of Libya's foreign policies supporting international terrorism and subversion against moderate Arab and African governments. In 1972, the United States withdrew its ambassador. Export controls on military equipment and civil aircraft were imposed during the 1970s, and U.S. embassy staff members were withdrawn from Tripoli after a mob attacked and set fire to the embassy in December 1979. The U.S. Government designated Libya a "state sponsor of terrorism" on December 29, 1979.

In May 1981, the U.S. Government closed the Libyan "people's bureau" (embassy) in Washington, DC, and expelled the Libyan staff in response to a general pattern of conduct by the people's bureau contrary to internationally accepted standards of diplomatic behavior.

In August 1981, two Libyan jets fired on U.S. aircraft participating in a routine naval exercise over international waters of the Mediterranean claimed by Libya. The U.S. planes returned fire and shot down the attacking Libyan aircraft. In December 1981, the State Department invalidated U.S. passports for travel to Libya and, for purposes of safety, advised all U.S. citizens in Libya to leave. In March 1982, the U.S. Government prohibited imports of Libyan crude oil into the United States and expanded the controls on U.S.-origin goods intended for export to Libya. Licenses were required for all transactions, except food and medicine. In March 1984, U.S. export controls were expanded to prohibit future exports to the Ras Lanuf petrochemical complex. In April 1985, all Export-Import Bank financing was prohibited.

Due to Libya's continuing support for terrorism, the United States adopted additional economic sanctions against Libya in January 1986, including a total ban on direct import and export trade, commercial contracts, and travel-related activities. In addition, Libyan Government assets in the United States were frozen. When evidence of Libyan complicity was discovered in the Berlin discotheque terrorist bombing that killed two American servicemen, the United States responded by launching an aerial bombing attack against targets near Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986 (Operation El Dorado Canyon).<ref>Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy, by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995</ref> Subsequently, the United States maintained its trade and travel embargoes and brought diplomatic and economic pressure to bear against Libya. This pressure helped to bring about the Lockerbie settlement and Libya's renunciation of WMD and MTCR-class missiles.
[[File:Libya Muammar-Gaddafi-and-President-Obama.jpg|right]]
In 1991, two Libyan intelligence agents were indicted by federal prosecutors in the U.S. and Scotland for their involvement in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. In January 1992, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 731 demanding that Libya surrender the suspects, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 investigations, pay compensation to the victims' families, and cease all support for terrorism. Libya's refusal to comply led to the approval of UNSC Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992, imposing sanctions designed to bring about Libyan compliance. Continued Libyan defiance led to passage of UNSC Resolution 883--a limited assets freeze and an embargo on selected oil equipment--in November 1993. UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003, after Libya fulfilled all remaining UNSCR requirements, including renunciation of terrorism, acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials, and payment of appropriate compensation to the victims' families.

On December 19, 2003, Libya announced its intention to rid itself of WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. Since that time, it has cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya has also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In recognition of these actions, the U.S. began the process of normalizing relations with Libya. The U.S. terminated the applicability of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to Libya and the President signed an Executive Order on September 20, 2004 terminating the national emergency with respect to Libya and ending IEEPA-based economic sanctions. This action had the effect of unblocking assets blocked under the Executive Order sanctions. Restrictions on cargo aviation and third-party code-sharing have been lifted, as have restrictions on passenger aviation. Certain export controls remain in place.

U.S. diplomatic personnel reopened the U.S. Interest Section in Tripoli on February 8, 2004. The mission was upgraded to a U.S. Liaison Office on June 28, 2004, and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006. The establishment in 2005 of an American School in Tripoli demonstrates the increased presence of Americans in Libya, and the continuing normalization of bilateral relations. Libya re-established its diplomatic presence in Washington with the opening of an Interest Section on July 8, 2004, which was subsequently upgraded to a Liaison Office in December 2004 and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006.

On May 15, 2006, the State Department announced its intention to rescind Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in recognition of the fact that Libya had met the statutory requirements for such a move: it had not provided any support for acts of international terrorism in the preceding six-month period, and had provided assurances that it would not do so in the future. On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In July 2007, Mr. Gene Cretz was nominated by President Bush as ambassador to Libya.

==Economy==
The government dominates Libya's socialist-oriented economy through complete control of the country's oil resources, which account for approximately 97% of export earnings, 75% of government receipts, and 54% of the gross domestic product. Oil revenues constitute the principal source of foreign exchange. Much of the country's income has been lost to waste, corruption, conventional armaments purchases, and attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, as well as to large donations made to developing countries in attempts to increase Gaddafi's influence in Africa and elsewhere. Although oil revenues and a small population give Libya one of the highest per capita GDPs in Africa, the government's mismanagement of the economy has led to high inflation and increased import prices. These factors resulted in a decline in the standard of living from the late 1990s through 2003.
*Real GDP (2000$, 2006): $46.451 billion.
*GDP per capita (PPP, 2006): $12,204.
*Real GDP growth rate (2006): 5.6%.
*Natural resources: Petroleum, natural gas, gypsum.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, barley, olives, dates, citrus, vegetables, peanuts, soybeans; cattle; approximately 75% of Libya's food is imported.
*Industry: Types--petroleum, food processing, textiles, handicrafts, cement.
*Trade: Exports (2006 est.)--$37.02 billion f.o.b.: crude oil, refined petroleum products. Major markets (2005)--Italy (38%), Germany (15.1%), Spain (9.3%), Turkey (6.2%), France (6.2%), U.S. (5.2%). Imports (2006 est.)--$14.47 billion f.o.b.: machinery, transport equipment, food, manufactured goods. Major suppliers (2003)--Italy (21.2%), Germany (10.2%), Tunisia (5.9%), Turkey (4.8%), U.K. (4.8%), France (4.7%), South Korea (4.6%), China (4.5%).
[[File:Home in Lybia.jpg|right|200px|Habitat.]]
Despite efforts to diversify the economy and encourage private sector participation, extensive controls of prices, credit, trade, and foreign exchange constrain growth. Import restrictions and inefficient resource allocations have caused periodic shortages of basic goods and foodstuffs.

Although agriculture is the second-largest sector in the economy, Libya imports most foods. Climatic conditions and poor soils severely limit output, while higher incomes and a growing population have caused food consumption to rise. Domestic food production meets about 25% of demand.

On September 20, 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order ending economic sanctions imposed under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). U.S. persons are no longer prohibited from working in Libya, and many American companies are actively seeking investment opportunities in Libya. The government has announced ambitious plans to increase foreign investment in the oil and gas sectors to significantly boost production capacity. The government is also pursuing a number of infrastructure projects such as highways, railways, telecommunications backbones, and irrigation.

==History==
[[File:Leptis Magna Lybia.jpg|thumb|290px|Roman circus at Leptis Magna.]]
For most of their history, the peoples of Libya have been subjected to varying degrees of foreign control. The Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Vandals, and Byzantines ruled all or parts of Libya. Although the Greeks and Romans left impressive ruins at Cyrene, Leptis Magna, and Sabratha, little else remains today to testify to the presence of these ancient cultures.

The Arabs conquered Libya in the seventh century A.D. In the following centuries, most of the indigenous peoples adopted Islam and the Arabic language and culture. The Ottoman Turks conquered the country in the mid-16th century. Libya remained part of their empire--although at times virtually autonomous--until Italy invaded in 1911 and, in the face of years of resistance, made Libya a colony.

In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony, which consisted of the Provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. King Idris I, Emir of Cyrenaica, led Libyan resistance to Italian occupation between the two World Wars. From 1943 to 1951, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were under British administration, while the French controlled Fezzan. In 1944, Idris returned from exile in Cairo but declined to resume permanent residence in Cyrenaica until the removal in 1947 of some aspects of foreign control. Under the terms of the 1947 peace treaty with the Allies, Italy relinquished all claims to Libya.

On November 21, 1949, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Libya should become independent before January 1, 1952. King Idris I represented Libya in the subsequent UN negotiations. When Libya declared its independence on December 24, 1951, it was the first country to achieve independence through the United Nations and one of the first former European possessions in Africa to gain independence. Libya was proclaimed a constitutional and a hereditary monarchy under King Idris.

The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled what had been one of the world's poorest countries to become extremely wealthy, as measured by per capita GDP. Although oil drastically improved Libya's finances, popular resentment grew as wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the elite. This discontent continued to mount with the rise throughout the Arab world of Nasserism and the idea of Arab unity.

On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by then 28-year-old army officer Mu'ammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi staged a coup d'état against King Idris, who was exiled to Egypt. The new regime, headed by the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. Gaddafi emerged as leader of the RCC and eventually as de facto chief of state, a political role he still plays. The Libyan government asserts that Gaddafi currently holds no official position, although he is referred to in government statements and the official press as the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution."

The new RCC's motto became "freedom, socialism, and unity." It pledged itself to remedy "backwardness", take an active role in the Palestinian Arab cause, promote Arab unity, and encourage domestic policies based on social justice, non-exploitation, and an equitable distribution of wealth.

An early objective of the new government was withdrawal of all foreign military installations from Libya. Following negotiations, British military installations at Tobruk and nearby El Adem were closed in March 1970, and U.S. facilities at Wheelus Air Force Base near Tripoli were closed in June 1970. That July, the Libyan Government ordered the expulsion of several thousand Italian residents. By 1971, libraries and cultural centers operated by foreign governments were ordered closed.

In the 1970s, Libya claimed leadership of Arab and African revolutionary forces and sought active roles in international organizations. Late in the 1970s, Libyan embassies were redesignated as "people's bureaus," as Gaddafi sought to portray Libyan foreign policy as an expression of the popular will. The people's bureaus, aided by Libyan religious, political, educational, and business institutions overseas, exported Gaddafi's revolutionary philosophy abroad.

Gaddafi's confrontational foreign policies and use of terrorism, as well as Libya's growing friendship with the U.S.S.R., led to increased tensions with the West in the 1980s. Following a terrorist bombing at a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by American military personnel, in 1986 the U.S. retaliated militarily against targets in Libya, and imposed broad unilateral economic sanctions.
[[File:Benghazi University Libya.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Benghazi, where mass protests against Gaddafi occurred in February 2011.]]
After Libya was implicated in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, UN sanctions were imposed in 1992. UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) passed in 1992 and 1993 obliged Libya to fulfill requirements related to the Pan Am 103 bombing before sanctions could be lifted. Gaddafi initially refused to comply with these requirements, leading to Libya's political and economic isolation for most of the 1990s.

In 1999, Libya fulfilled one of the UNSCR requirements by surrendering two Libyans suspected in connection with the bombing for trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands. One of these suspects, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, was found guilty; the other was acquitted. Al-Megrahi's conviction was upheld on appeal in 2002. In August 2003, Libya fulfilled the remaining UNSCR requirements, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation to the victims' families. UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003. U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)-based sanctions were lifted September 20, 2004.

On December 19, 2003, Libya publicly announced its intention to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)-class missile programs. Since that time, it has cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya has also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. These were important steps toward full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Libya.

== Libyan uprising 2011 ==
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi forces in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
The unrest in Libya started as a series of protests in eastern Libya following uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of the violence contrasts markedly with North Africa's largely peaceful uprisings. The uprising is trying to reclaim Libya from the world's longest-ruling leader. Eastern Libya has fallen to the uprising, which began on 16 February in the wake of revolutions which toppled the long-serving leaders of neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help an uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman leader Moamer Gaddafi, according to a statement posted by the SITE monitoring group. <ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref>

<blockquote>
Libya's rebel commanders have freed two MI6 officers and six SAS soldiers captured by farm guards on Thursday morning, after the British government vouched for their identities. The group was immediately flown to the frigate HMS Cumberland, which remains stationed off the coast of Libya.
Seven of the group had been dropped by helicopter into farmland near the rebel capital Benghazi on a mission to establish contact with anti-regime forces. <ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref>
</blockquote>

It was reported on February 24, 2011, an emergency meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Libya would take no action or make no recommendation to the UN [[General Assembly]] to remove Libya from holding its seat on the UN Human Rights Council.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref>
On March 17, 2011, a majority of the [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to pass UNSC Resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its [[British]] and [[Lebanese]] partners, allowing the use of force in Libya. [[Russia]] and [[China]] abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi to step aside and has given assistance to the anti-Gadaffi forces. However, Congressional leaders were not consulted prior to the committment of U.S. forces,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor did the Congress authorize the use of force in Libya.

China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. After hostilities began China evcuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref>

Military and intelligence experts in France, Britian, and the United States warned about uncertainties but were overruled by political leaders. The end result was a set of decisions that focused on short term considerations and gambled on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate but, according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Qaddafi out of power.}}
Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of rebels could win through sheer political momentum and could then be turned into a successful government. One month later it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support" provided by the United Nations.

===French intervention===

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to stop an assault by Gaddafi forces on Benghazi and the establishment of a no-fly zone in the country. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes had attacked armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the knowledge of key allied militaries, including the [[United States]].<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reports Sarkozy has enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' writes Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy has used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States which has been abbrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO===

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 have provided military support. Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>

Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}

===United States intervention===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama announced U.S. military forces had commenced operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as givng him the authority to do so. The Charter of the [[United Nations]] however, in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that if a no-fly zone were imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against its neighbors, that state may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone itself as an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

A hearing conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama ordered intervention revealed differences of opinion between several Senators and the administration about the need for Congressional authorization, and the likelihood [[al Qaeda]] and other violent Islamists are poised to take advantage of the Libyan situation.

Sometime prior to March 31, 2011, Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the anti-Gaddafi forces. Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, however within 30 days opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of what the intervention created began setting in.

===Mission creep===
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similiarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel forces have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizeable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:African Countries]]
[[Category:Libya]]

Cru

2011-04-23T03:28:14Z

KNorris:

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
| '''''THIS IS BULLSHlT'''''[[File:]]
|}</div>

Talk:Wikipedia

2011-04-23T03:27:09Z

KNorris:

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
| ='''''THIS IS BULLSHlT'''''=
|}</div>

Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The need for factual evidence (not based solely upon polls, which are essentially a measurement of mass opinion) abounds in this article as well as the rest of this site. Without evidence supporting your claims, you create straw-man arguments that are easy to refute. They will maintain no sway in those who are not yet persuaded, for these people will look past your argument into your logical fallacies. Please just keep this in mind during creation of future articles. {{unsigned|TheFlaxenFox}} December 2007.

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source fr that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

Footnote 178 is a link to another site. When I went to that site, I could find no indication of the quotation that was presumably from there. This needs to be corrected. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] 18:54, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. Sodomy is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

So I was reading this article and saw this: "Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of USA Today from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability." His case about Wikipedia threatening free speech is based on the fact that it is free for anyone to voice their opinions and not controlled by the government. Sorry guys, i know it must be hard trying to uphold the conservative practices with what little backing you can find, but really - please try to make some sense with what you put on here. I'm only looking out for you guys, and you're not doing anything with this site but declaring your close-mindedness and denouncing every single detail that you don't completely agree with. Thanks, and have a nice day. Oh, and by the by, your warning stating "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors" is the exact same formatting used on the Wikipedia, the very same site you are trying to protest. -- [[User:genghis19958|genghis19958]] 23:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a minor spelling error, "...the gravity of thier concerns". -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:26, 22 February 2008 (EST)

: Great catch. I just fixed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

Actually, Wikipedia contains a quite large article called "Criticism of Wikipedia" solely dedicated to criticism towards ''themselves''. Is there anything more neutral than that? If you really want to criticize Wikipedia for not being neutral, begin by adding an article to Conservapedia called "Criticism of Conservapedia" or at least a section on the page about Conservapedia containing criticism without repudiation immediately afterwards as in [[Conservapedia#Testimonies and Impact]]. Sure you like this site, but you won't claim it to be perfect, will you?--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The Earls of Strathmore were ancestors of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1900-2001) and hence of our own dear Queen, so tho' HL wasn't royalty himself he did have a link to the royals, and a pretty arcane one, at that! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Rutgers-Ivy "hoax" ==

I'm curious as to what sources you had for the idea that the Ivy League invitation to Rutgers was a "hoax". That's all. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Um... faulty logic? You need to prove the hoax exists. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:41, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Arbitary blocking==

Someone named R. Fiend just blocked my Wikipedia account for 48 hours - no reason given. ;-)

Typical hijinks at the asylum run by the inmates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are you running an attack site, Ed? The proposed decision says, "a period of investigation should occur, including attempts to negotiate with the site regarding the objectionable material. If it possible without republication of sensitive material, the matter should be discussed at a forum such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#A_wait] Maybe it's guilt by association. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, someone saw my message on my user talk page there and unblocked me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Paul L. Boyer otherwise known as R. fiend can pretty much do and say anything he likes at Wikipedia. His claim to fame is that he once appeared on Jeopardy! where he was said to be working as a bartender. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 13:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

::Dwain, got any diffs? A bartender on Jeopardy! is enough to be WP expert in the field of knowledge. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:25, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Stunning the world==
*The most popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia has stunned the world; and as a leading force in the open source revolution has shaken assumptions regarding knowledge and scholarship to their very roots. Its reliability has been challenged because of its policy to let anyone contribute to it, but it has stood up remarkably to tests and comparisons to conventional sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Main_Page]

::You sound like a wikipedia infomerical. It has hardly "stunned the world". The concept was a good one, but the implementation was where problems kicked in. And wikipedia only has comparable information to encyclopedias in non-controversial areas, and even then it has a tendency to sound a bit disjointed. Look at the article on the moon for instance. Although no new information has been found for a while, there have been 50 edits since the start of the month. There's a constant battle of pushing and pulling inherent in wikipedia and its political correctness. One person dared to show distances in miles as well as kilometers -- of course he was reverted.

::Most of us here would praise the original concept, but what it became helps to serve as an example to us of what not to do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:46, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

WP isn't all bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:27, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Languages ==
At risk of sounding disingenuous, couldn't this be perceived as hypocrisy: "There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles." - It's phrased as a criticism, but it should be noted that, for example, Conservapedia has only English language articles. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Arcane British royalty ==
In the opening paragraph, Wikipedia's entry on Henry Liddell is cited as an example of arcane British royalty. He wasn't royalty. Either another example should be found or the text changed to something like "obscure British nobility". [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

: Thank you. Change made as requested. Factual truth comes first, though I can't resist observing that this correction seems rather arcane on this side of the pond!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, yes, I can understand that. Indeed, royalty is simply the "uppermost" tier of nobility. But British royalty is actually very small with only about a dozen or so members, i.e. the family of the monarch, and so none of them, at least in the UK, are particularly obscure even though they might be the US.
::As I'm on a roll, I might also point out that Henry Liddell isn't notable for his nobility - I'm not even sure whether he was nobility or simply Esquire. Rather he is notable for those things in the opening paragraph of his entry on Wikipedia. I'm sure there must be a better example. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::: Well, I went and looked at the entry again, and some of those "notable" things of Henry Liddell do not seem terribly significant in 2007. I do think the copying by [[Wikipedia]] of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, with its very British view of that outdated world, plays a role here. Also, not to be overly contentious, but the point is not whether the entry is notable, but that the entry is filled with junk about arcane nobility. Still, I agree, there might be an even better example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Yes, the criticism was not of the article's subject itself, but of some of the trivia in it. But I do find it annoying when insular Americans judge the merit of something on how important it is to Americans. And although the connection to Alice in Wonderland is merely trivia, it's ''interesting'' trivia! (Perhaps it shouldn't be in the introduction, though.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Philip, I think I can safely speak for all non-Brits, or at least all non-English speaking people, in describing [[Wikipedia]]'s trivia about British nobility as "arcane"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: I'm not sure what relevance "non-English speaking people" have for an ''English'' language encyclopaedia, but apart from that, perhaps you are correct. I actually decided that I better look up "arcane" to be sure I understood the word, and it wasn't quite what I thought it was. ''Arcane: mysterious; secret; obscure.'' Yes, I guess for many people the British nobility is a bit mysterious and obscure. But then I could say much the same about calculus, quantum theory, and definitely the American system for electing presidents which I've ''never'' been able to comprehend! But isn't an encyclopaedia intended to demystify the mysterious and clarify the obscure? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

= Content Suggestions =
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==

I'm going to tread lightly here. I know there is loads of animosity toward Wikipedia here, but wouldn't it be fair to mention SOME of the good aspects of the site? To me, it seems like most of the WP articles disputed here are only on highly-politicized topics. Personally, I have found that many of the basic science articles (fundamental physics and chemistry, especially most of the mathematics branches) as well as many of the History articles are quite good and seem to line up exactly with my university texts.

I think it is fair to mention the virtue of WP's non-politicized articles, as they greatly outnumber the hot-button subjects. I will not start editing the page until I can collaborate with somebody though. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, there are of course lots of positive aspects of Wikipedia especially, as you say, in articles that are not contentious along socio-political lines. And even those articles that are contentious tend to be good - there is no reason why conservatives shouldn't exert as much editorial pressure as liberals, which of course they do.

:But two reasons why Conservapedia will not publish pro-Wikipedia content. Firstly, it's in direct competition with it. Not commercially but for what it sees as the hearts and minds of the new generation. Secondly, Conservapedia does not pretend to be NPOV. It promotes a dichotomy between left and right. So, while Wikipedia has good things to say about Conservapedia and even bad things to say about itself, Conservapedia doesn't want to dilute its anti-Wikipedia stance at all.

:While I agree with you that Conservapedia would be taken more seriously by mainstream conservatives if it could allow itself to be a little more balanced, I feel this is unlikely in this currently hyped atmosphere of them and us. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:: In the lead sentence of its entry about [[Conservapedia]], [[Wikipedia]] lies about our "stated purpose" in an attempt to smear us. This has been pointed out in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but the [[liberals]] at [[Wikipedia]] won't correct it. I doubt you will either.

:: No, there's little of value in a cite as devoted to lies, gossip and pornography as [[Wikipedia]] is. What's next, you're going to insist that the National Enquirer has much redeeming value? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::"Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism." (from Wikipedia's intro on Conservapedia).

:::Where's the lie in the above, Aschlafy? Or is it a simple error? Or a difference in opinion. I don't know - genuinely interested. And why don't you change it?

:::Personally I don't find Wikipedia particularly dedicated to lies, gossip and pornography. Sure, it's there if you look for it, but I don't. Wikipedia has many redeeming features - it would churlish to deny it. I still maintain they should be covered in this article to lend a bit of balance. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm.. actually I think I see what you're getting at. I think sentence means that the stated purpose is to create "an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint" and that it is "supportive of ... Young Earth creationism". But yes, that form of words might suggest that the latter was also a stated aim. I could attempt to change it... [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Done. Let me know what you think. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Better, but the term "supportive" (used twice) is still wrong, non-encyclopedic, and an attempt to smear Conservapedia. Also, note how [[liberals]] have flagged the entry and are likely to change or revert any improvements you make. One [[liberal]] has already modified your edit! Welcome to how [[Wikipedia]] operates in removing improvements and ensuring continuing [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::...the "liberal" edit did nothing more than moving a source to its proper place. The source reads:
{{cquote|Welcome to Conservapedia – Wikipedia from a creationist perspective. [...] Perhaps not surprisingly, it seems creationism gets top marks in every one of its 5,100 entries.}}
:::::So it seems like "supportive" is not a too unfitting word in this context. The "problem" is not in Wikipedia, it's in the source. And it's in the source because Conservapedia does give exactly that impression. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:09, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::: What are you quoting from ... a [[liberal]] article trying to smear [[Conservapedia]]? And that makes something factual????

:::::: Suppose I changed [[Wikipedia]]'s entry and described Wikipedia as "supportive" of the homosexual lifestyle and abortion-on-demand. Would you accept that as a proper description at the beginning of its entry? No, I doubt you would. Yet [[Wikipedia]] insists on its baseless smears of Conservapedia, which is not "supportive" of any specific position. Our [[rules]] have been clear from the very beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Aschfly, can I just get this straight, please? Are you denying that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative viewpoint? Or a Youth Earth Creationist viewpoint? Or both? Or what?

:::::::The text as it now stands states that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative view and many of the articles are supportive of a YEC view. Is this not correct? If it isn't, what form of words would be correct? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:50, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not going to waste time by repeating this again. If you would like to remove the lies from Wikipedia's entry about Conservative, then that would be welcome, though I'd expect Wikipedia editors to reinsert the lies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::If you tell me what the lies are and why, I will try to. Or give a link that describes them. Or tell me what your preferred set of words would be. I don't see why this is proving to be so difficult. I've obviously missed previous discussions on this. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I think the original point has been diluted with all of this unnecessary talk regarding the definition Wikipedia currently provides for Conservapedia. The only comment I'll make is that Wikipedia's article seems quite balanced, and I've been contributing heavily to it lately to make sure this site isn't unnecessarily mocked. I am against bias. Now, the real question/issue is whether there are merits to be found in using Wikipedia, a site which hosts nearly 2 million articles. Granted some maybe viewed by others to be "anti-intellectual" in nature - if you don't want to read about music groups, television shows, movies, video games etc..etc..that's fine. But take a gander at Wikipedia's repository for science related articles. This includes cell biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, medicine (pathology) and countless other categories. They are extremely well written, neutral, sourced, and informative. And I'm not talking about Evolution. I echo the original commentors observations - it also applies to historical, geographical, and mathematical articles. I think this article itself would benefit from a fleshing out. You don't have to PRETEND NPOV, but you can still strive for it. Right now it's just a list of negativity that represents a minutia of problems with Wikipedia articles in the past. Just my two cents. I would be more than happy to help. And before anyone calls me on liberal bias, I beg you to look past those classifications and see that I am a Wikipedian and a Conservapedian. Thanks guys. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I've read (or tried to plow through) many of Wikipedia's life sciences articles. They are poorly written. They are no good for beginners, i.e., people who don't know much about biology for example. And they are biased against the idea that human beings may have more to them than just their physical bodies.

:::You can't say much about people without considering the [[spiritual body]] [[St. Paul]] spoke of, and you can't describe human life without [[free will]] and [[life after death]]. Moreover, how can you talk about the children without describing their [[God|Father]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:50, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has many positive features. I wouldn't have devoted 3 years of spare time to it, if I thought it was utterly useless. For one thing, it pioneered the concept of a free online encyclopedia which is collaboratively written.

Oh, and they're moving their headquarters to San Francisco, where they'll be surrounded by more liberals than ever before. ;-) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BU69SNMQ2.DTL] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Either that or they're moving to the Ninth Federal Judicial District in hopes of more favorable rulings from all the lawsuits they have. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:

:Content on Wikipedia is controlled by and released under the "GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's edits on Wikipedia.

Maybe we can divide this article into general information of interest - such as the license and the ease of editing - and the strenuous criticism of its leftist bias and general unreliability. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::Finally? I've been saying so all along. Remember, I'm still on the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia. And I used to be a senior admin until the inmates took over the asylum.

::Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

==Two pages?==
This is just an idea, but maybe all the sections of the Wikipedia page talking about it's scandals and stuff could be moved to a separate page (like [[Controversy in wikipedia]] or something like that, and this page could just summarize wikipedia, Kinda like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia this], except include some of the bad aspects as well). [[User:1984|1984]] 17:40, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

==Major Faux Pas from using Wikipedia==
Due to a mis-quote on Wikipedia a group of university professors caused Pope Benedict XVI to cancel a lecture at La Sapienza University in Rome in January 2008. This garnered international attention and was a major embarassment to the university.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7188860.stm

http://www.zenit.org/article-21701?l=english

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020707.html

==Ethnocentrism==

* I personally think this article should also mention Wikipedia's preference for American content over non-American content (or, for that matter, criticisms raised by non-American users). As a British user on [[Wikipedia]], I can testify to such bias, hence why I am now active on [[Conservapedia]]. Take Wikipedia's ''List of films considered the worst'' or ''List of films considered the best'' - on both articles, nearly all films are American, and no attention is made to European or Asian films. And then we have an entry I made on their ''DC Comics'' page a while back, highlighting DC Comics' apparent tradition of portraying British and French characters in a negative light. All I got for my pains was a speedy deletion and a comment with language strong enough to peel paint off of my doorframe. [[User:Crablogger]] 12:28 GMT, 22 April 2009

= Other =
==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]
::Yes, this is true. Liberals, pagans and freemasons seem to be in control of all content at Wikipedia. A freemason merely has to express outrage at a quote (usually one by a freemason) regarding freemasonry on a userpage or person.al website and everyone jumps to remove the information. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 15:32, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Did you know ... ==
Did you know that you can buy a listing in Wikipedia on eBay? Ebay user diremine, who has a 99,9% positive feedback, provides the service of getting an article about your business inside Wikipedia, 10
interwiki links to your article and 2 external links to your website. [http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160146092291&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=160144755846&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget] [http://myworld.ebay.com/diremine] Wikipedia suggests there are spy's and traitors who assist with this.(Wikizine - number: 79)

:Diremine is already indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for that reason, as you can see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diremine his user page]. Wikipedia will not tolerate such abuse. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5] {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==For the record==
For the record, I was one of the "other Wikipedia Review" editors investigating the Essjay scandal. Here [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20408] I raised the possibility Essjay could be more than one person. Here, Brandt confronts Essjay, and asks, "Are you more than one person?" [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/usermess.png] it should also noted, the forum was frequented by high level WP Administrators who were active participants in these discussions, and new all relevent facts. Therefore, the discoveries made on January 19, that Essjay had lied & put the credibility of WP at stake in a most compromising way was known to high level WP Admins who regulalry report back on activities on the mailing lists before ''Jimbo'' appointed Essjay to ArbCom, with the full knowledge the ''The New Yorker'' was about to print a retraction on the lies and disinformation.

How this got fouled up in WP's internal bureacracy, is only a cause for speculation. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Waste ==

Isn't this article just bashing Wikipedia, not a very nice (or informative) article

: It's factual and balanced about [[Wikipedia]], which is more than can be said about [[Wikipedia]]'s smears in its entry about [[Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::This article is far from balanced (and I believe that's the general consensus among your users) - there isn't a single informative statement that doesn't have to do directly with some kind of verbose scandal or minutia error that existed in a handful of articles out of millions. No offense Aschlafly, but the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia is an example of what this one should be -resourceful, neutral, and informative in ALL aspects. Just my two cents. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:01, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think this whole website is very factual or helpful in anyway, it is just to promote a very conserative agenda.
[[User:EtAlt292|EtAlt292]] 14:48, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::hot button issues maybe, but not the majority of the articles. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)

: EtAlt292, how about stating your political beliefs (e.g., [[liberal]]) before pretending to be unbiased in your comments???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::I kinda take exception to that statement - Just because someone disagrees with certain issues doesn't make them inherently biased, or in this case "liberal". I self-identify as a liberal (mostly because if I was forced to pick a label, that would be it), although I normally eschew such classifications, but I don't consider myself biased at all. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:39, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Let's look at the conclusion of this article [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html]covering the recent Overstock.com/Bagley/Attack sites incident:
{{QuoteBox|If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion. 

"'''When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today’s age is people are going to Google the issue and then read the Wikipedia article''' that comes up," Byrne says. "So if you can control that article, you can really deflect the discourse." 

Whatever the motives behind it, there's no doubt that the Wikipedia inner circle rules those four articles with an iron fist. And as Charles Ainsworth points out, this puts a cloud over the entire encyclopedia. 

"Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community," he says. "But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. '''What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans''' to some degree." 

"When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately," Ainsworth continues. "Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles." }}

:::Northing has been added from Bagley's case to this article, yet the conclusions are virtually identical to what is already presented here.

:::For the record, see Byrne's posting to Daniel Brandt here, "''your'' gangsters turn out to be connected to ''our'' gangsters."[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3761&view=findpost&p=14936] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== More sources for section on Barbara Bauer ==

Should have better sourcing. We should add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Barbara%20Bauer] where the quoted comment actually occurred as well as possibly including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_31#Barbara_Bauer] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_25] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer]. The Bauer dispute seems that it might be more complicated. I'm struggling to understand what happened so we can add more to it. It looks like some liberal science fiction writers tried to hijack a lot of Wikipedia and got away with it until Bauer filed suit. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 23:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Quoting from Wikipedia==

I am aware that the Commandments forbid quoting from Wikipedia, unless it is done to illustrate a liberal point of view, but what would be the problem if the quoted material was something which Conservapedians found unobjectionable? I have just joined, and have not made any edits yet. But I'm a musician by profession, and so one of the first areas of this encyclopedia I looked at was the one on music. Compare the page here on, say, Music Theory with the equivalent page on Wikipedia. The difference in quality is immense; the Conservapedia page is innacurate and confusing, to say the least. I can't think of any possible liberal bias which could lurk within a topic like that, and any that did exist (such as British spellings or BCE dates) could be easily edited. So what is the rule regarding this subject?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:Hi and welcome. My take on the issue is that we just don't lift text from wikipedia. As I understand the way WP works, there is no original research or creative writing there, so their information must show where it is from, and so there should be no problem with us being able to use the same or similar sources to produce our own articles without having to actually take text from WP. With regard to the article you mention, it may well be that we have no one (unlike yourself that is) who is a professional musician or at least an informed amateur to produce - yet - a quality technical article. Of course, you are welcome to bring your knowledge to the crease and I'm sure everyone here, and our readers, would be very grateful for your efforts there :) My musical knowledge is limited to "I know what I like" lol [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:In furtherance of Fox's comments, Eoinc, if you wrote the entry on Wikipedia, then of course you can copy your own work. But I compared our [[music theory]] to Wikipedia's and personally I prefer our concise, encyclopedic treatment. Wikipedia has not one, not two, but three big disclaimers in its entry, the first of which says it was taken almost entirely from one source! Moreover, the Wikipedia entry is far to long and tedious to be educational. I'm a teacher and know the value of conciseness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:We may be confusing two issues here. As mentioned above, you are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia, unless it is entirely your own work. But you are also not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, which I think may be what Eoinc is referring to. Wikipedia has a similar rule, i.e. that you cannot use other on-line encyclopedias, blogs, etc. as sources. It has to be what they refer to as a "reliable source". Similarly, we don't find Wikipedia necessarily reliable, so you can't use it as a source. But as Fox said, you may be able to use and cite the same sources that Wikipedia uses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia minimizes Bozell's criticism. ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Brent_Bozell_III&diff=prev&oldid=157974132]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikilink cleanup ==

There are some inappropriately-linked dates in the [[Wikipedia#The_scandal_breaks]] section. Could someone clean this up or unlock it so that I can do it? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist ==

What relevance does saying Wales is an atheist have? The website is not atheist and covers all ranges of topics, so I don't understand why this has any place in the first sentence of the article. [[User:Luano|Luano]] 19:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Because atheist = bad. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, how unbelievably insulting is that? Way to make an unwarranted generalization, dude. Unfortunately, that is exactly why they make hay of Wales' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) - because the founders of this site seriously believe that an atheist is somehow the worst thing someone could possibly be. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 15:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see relevance for including what religion (or lack of such) the founder(s) of wikipedia adhere to. Surely this should be removed? [[User:BobBelura|BobBelura]] 12:57, 27 November 2009 (EST)

==Jimbo Wales==
Do you think were helping the conservative cause by calling "Jimmy Wales" "Jimbo Wales".

: I thought he preferred that nickname. We don't care but we often use the nicknames preferred by the person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==Sexual obsession==
Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference? One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].
I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

== Er.. ==

:well, in all fairness they also cover a large number of other subjects in addition to sexual trivia and phraseology, they have a great deal of information on masonry, biology etc., But I agree that some of those articals just don't need to exist.

==Rachel Marsden==
Ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, now Wale's biggest critic. Her summary describes Wikipedia as an "online libel board," that "any loser can use to smear people who are more successful than them." http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9999282-2.html , July 25, 2008--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:39, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:I would just point out that n ex-girlfriend, particularly one that became such under not very amicable circumstances, might not be the best or most unbiased source imaginable. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:32, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:: True, due to her circumstances. However, replace her name with any known conservative, just keep the quotes. I bet you still get the truth about Wikipedia!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Arabic wikipedia ==

Hi, any one can do/write an article about the Arabic wikipedia, please review the talk page here, nd help if u can, it's so biased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_Wikipedia The arabic wiki]
Regards.

::Are you Stayfi? If so, I really suggest you take some ESL courses before you make any further attempts to enact change at Wikipedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:33, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::hhh, eh, u can always add an a or an A, if u didn't get it, i changed it for u, dude, just so simple. --[[User:Stayfi|Stayfi]] 15:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Typo ==

There is a typo in the article, currently. "Mr. Farah has repeatedly has been..." I would have made the change myself, but the article is protected. What does one have to do around here to prove one's credentials for editing the article about Wikipedia? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] 15:45, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

: Done, six minutes after your request. Not bad, eh? It's unlocked for general editing now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

==Endorsement==

The introduction to Wikipedia's own "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry reads, "The Seigenthaler and Essjay incidents caused criticism of Wikipedia's reliability and usefulness as a reference." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia] Googles return some 74,000 hits for "Essjay." Wikipedia's attempts to rewrite its own history are well known. Conservapedia's entry on Wikipedia, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#cite_note-135 footnote 136] {[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=20992&#entry20992 original source]) refers to the site admin at Wikipediareview who blow the Essjay fraud wide open, exposed the scandal, provoked the international condemnation and flight of experts and academics who washed thier hands of the project. This site admins name is Somey. Of all the apologetics, coverups & disinformation abundant, Somey has now said about Conservapedia's entry on Wikipedia, "their version of the Essjay story is one of the more accurate ones I've seen." [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7152&view=findpost&p=176421]
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

== Don't think all of us are idiots ==

Not all of us are idiots, I, for one, cannot stand liberals, and I'm an editor at Wikipedia. I see a lot of other conservatives at the site as well, many of the Wikipedians posting at http://wikipolitics.blogspot.com/ appear to be conservatives as well. The great thing about Wikipedia though is that while sometimes the biased morrons can sway articles, articles can be swayed back to a more neutral point of view if enough people fight them, whereas there's nothing that can be done about what's broadcast in public schools, colleges, and liberal news outlets. I guess I'm kind of a testimate to the claim of young "Wikipedians." It's sad that so many people are ignorant enough to fall for the BS that these liberals are putting out there, and it's even worse that many of these people are adults that are considered to be "educated." [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 14:34, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:DMorris, thank you for sharing your first-person testimonial in such a candid way. Keep at it if you think it is worthwhile, but my view is that trying to edit on Wikipedia is like trying to bail water out of the sinking Titanic. Wikipedia is the house of atheism on the internet, and it's going the way of East Germany.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== NHope--edit warring, reverting Conservative's edits. ==

Would a sysop please resolve the question of whether or not NHope should be constantly removing material inserted into this article by Conservative? Thanks. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 20:44, 2 February 2011 (EST)

: Martyp, are you simply trying to undermine conservative values and disgrace Conservapedia? Who the material was inserted by is immaterial. Let's discuss the nature of the ''edits'' themselves instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks. The quote added by [[User:Conservative]] is off-topic, not humorous in the least, and downright ludicrous. Andy, please intervene. [[User:NHope|NHope]] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (EST)
::I find it both humorous and relevant. And I've only been here a short time and would never dream of arbitrarily undoing the work of somebody who has contributed so much to this project--it's a question of being respectful. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 20:50, 2 February 2011 (EST)

::: Friend, let me remind you of James 2:1-4: "(1) My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. (2) For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; (3) And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: (4) Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?" [[User:NHope|NHope]] 21:00, 2 February 2011 (EST)

::::Let's keep NHope's corrections up a while; perhaps there's room for a humor page or two elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:13, 2 February 2011 (EST)
::::::::The song which declares Wikipedians to be nerds has gotten over 53,000,00 views at YouTube[http://www.youtube.com/user/alyankovicVEVO#p/u/0/N9qYF9DZPdw] . Face it - Wikipedians are nerds and public is well aware of this fact! [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:28, 2 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::: I have responded to you on Andy's talk page. Please don't insert the quote again until we have received a response from him. Thanks! :-) [[User:NHope|NHope]] 23:33, 2 February 2011 (EST)

A Choice Not An Echo

2011-04-23T03:24:21Z

KNorris:

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
| THIS IS BULLSHlT
|}</div>

Christianity

2011-04-23T03:24:05Z

KNorris:

<div style="width: 100%; position: fixed;top: 1px; left: 1px;">
{| width="100%" style="background:FF0000;"
| [[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]]
[[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]]
[[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]]
[[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]]
[[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]][[File:Hello.jpg]]
|}</div>

Heaven

2011-04-23T03:24:00Z

KNorris:

Andrew Schlafly

2011-04-23T03:23:54Z

KNorris: