Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama

2014-04-03T21:08:55Z

LafinJack: Created page with "Hello! The first reference cited ( http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Political_career ) itself refers back to a Conservapedia article, creating a circular reference. ..."

Hello! The first reference cited ( http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Political_career ) itself refers back to a Conservapedia article, creating a circular reference. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:08, 3 April 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T22:05:49Z

LafinJack: /* Article Naming */ new section

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

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

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

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

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

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

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

== Obama's Atheism ==

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

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

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

== Obama Arab-American ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Small comments ==

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

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

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

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

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

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

== Low Res Pic ==

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

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

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

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

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

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

== Why no family section? ==

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

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

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

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

== Some Changes ==

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

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

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article Naming ==

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

Talk:John McCain

2009-01-29T00:43:59Z

LafinJack:

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

JP, I have made a few edits, albeit minor ones, to some existing pages so as to honor the 90/10 policy. My apologies for not taking note earlier. I'm in the process of making more edits. As for this paragraph, I'm a little wary of removing something like this (granted, it's not here anymore so I can't see what it said) because there was a lot of controversy surrounding McCain's fundraising protocol that was addressed by both liberal and credible sources. Do we really want to sweep something under the rug because it doesn't look pretty? That's stooping to liberal level...Even Wikipedia addresses the apparently negative aspects surrounding Democratic figureheads, thus if we don't do the same, my concern is that we are going to be seen as less than Wikipedia. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 14:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

:It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

== Ctrooprers edits ==

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bomb'''s'''", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.

:::The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading==

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under [[Liberal Bias]] anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

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

:We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::And the Obama article? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==

My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --[[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

:Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bridget McCain ==

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "rightpundits.com", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1636 Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter]. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion for an administrator==
This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/rice-mccain-741881.jpg under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

: You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top News.com, which is where I got this image, http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg. They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

== education ==

On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:[[Obama]] article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
:So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. ''Magna cum laude'' is a really good performance. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You mean [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ADesk%2FAbuse&diff=513169&oldid=510916 this Andy]? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm baaaack, your [[parthian shot]] failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's ''lack of'' birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the [http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/PH2008050201443.jpg record of births]? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::For what it's worth, the [[Joe Biden]] article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated ''"from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class"''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Allard's amendment"==

In the Same-sex marriage section, it includes a quote where McCain refers to "Senator Allard's amendment", but the section makes no reference before this to what Senator Allard's amendment is. Perhaps the section could be cleaned up a bit, and a short description included. I know many people can derive a general sense of the bill's content through context, but younger readers might find this a bit confusing, and I didn't want to perform major "article surgery" without an idea of what the "operation" should be! [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:Many of those sections near the ends need some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::Agreed. I'll try to clean them up today.

===Prisoner-of-War===

:::Also, does this need to be written this way "Prisoner-of-War"? I'm not used to seeing it written this way, with hyphens and capitalization. It's fine to keep War capitalized in the title, but it's written as "prisoner of war" in the article too, and it seems to me that it's not a proper noun. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prisoner+of+war] [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

== Biased introduction paragraph ==

Whether or not you support John McCain should not bias your summary of John McCain. Using phrases like "prominent maverick" or "influential leader" should be cited if there is actual solid proof of their validity. If not they should be removed since they have been presented as facts. I am not saying they are not true I am only saying they are misleading without proper citation. Any claim one makes should be cited if one is presenting it to be fact.

:Hopefully there is information in the article itself that would help one to see the validity of the statements. It would be hard to 'cite' the entire article. That John McCain was considered to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the 2004 ticket should tell you that he's a maverick. As far as being a leader, any of the numerous bills that he has put forth and pushed for already show that. When you tackle an issue like campaign finance reform, that would annoy both parties, and you actually get it to take a position of prominence under your leadership, then we are allowed to acknowledge that as leadership. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Confederate flag ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=539642&oldid=539635 What is the reason for this revert?] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:It was somewhat negative.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 18:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was surprised by your response until I looked at your edit history. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and help build an encyclopedia. I doubt anyone is interested in helping you be snarky. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== McCain & Evolution ==
JakobL says McCain is clearly against evolution. I think he understands it but feels not appropriate for Science class. What says you? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This link:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html
indicates that McCain is something of a theistic evolutionist. - [[User:Martib|Martib]] 14:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

John McCain's view of evolution is not "nuanced." He is a darwinist who rejects God's influence in our world. We criticize Obama for being muslim- but John McCain is hardly a conservative and denies the very nature of a Christian God. Let's call a spade a spade. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 19:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:John McCain

2009-01-29T00:42:45Z

LafinJack:

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

JP, I have made a few edits, albeit minor ones, to some existing pages so as to honor the 90/10 policy. My apologies for not taking note earlier. I'm in the process of making more edits. As for this paragraph, I'm a little wary of removing something like this (granted, it's not here anymore so I can't see what it said) because there was a lot of controversy surrounding McCain's fundraising protocol that was addressed by both liberal and credible sources. Do we really want to sweep something under the rug because it doesn't look pretty? That's stooping to liberal level...Even Wikipedia addresses the apparently negative aspects surrounding Democratic figureheads, thus if we don't do the same, my concern is that we are going to be seen as less than Wikipedia. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 14:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

:It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

== Ctrooprers edits ==

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bomb'''s'''", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.

:::The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading==

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under [[Liberal Bias]] anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

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

:We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::And the Obama article? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==

My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --[[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

:Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bridget McCain ==

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "rightpundits.com", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1636 Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter]. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion for an administrator==
This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/rice-mccain-741881.jpg under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

: You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top News.com, which is where I got this image, http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg. They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

== education ==

On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:[[Obama]] article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
:So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. ''Magna cum laude'' is a really good performance. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You mean [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ADesk%2FAbuse&diff=513169&oldid=510916 this Andy]? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm baaaack, your [[parthian shot]] failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's ''lack of'' birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the [http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/PH2008050201443.jpg record of births]? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::For what it's worth, the [[Joe Biden]] article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated ''"from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class"''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Allard's amendment"==

In the Same-sex marriage section, it includes a quote where McCain refers to "Senator Allard's amendment", but the section makes no reference before this to what Senator Allard's amendment is. Perhaps the section could be cleaned up a bit, and a short description included. I know many people can derive a general sense of the bill's content through context, but younger readers might find this a bit confusing, and I didn't want to perform major "article surgery" without an idea of what the "operation" should be! [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:Many of those sections near the ends need some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::Agreed. I'll try to clean them up today.

===Prisoner-of-War===

:::Also, does this need to be written this way "Prisoner-of-War"? I'm not used to seeing it written this way, with hyphens and capitalization. It's fine to keep War capitalized in the title, but it's written as "prisoner of war" in the article too, and it seems to me that it's not a proper noun. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prisoner+of+war] [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

== Biased introduction paragraph ==

Whether or not you support John McCain should not bias your summary of John McCain. Using phrases like "prominent maverick" or "influential leader" should be cited if there is actual solid proof of their validity. If not they should be removed since they have been presented as facts. I am not saying they are not true I am only saying they are misleading without proper citation. Any claim one makes should be cited if one is presenting it to be fact.

:Hopefully there is information in the article itself that would help one to see the validity of the statements. It would be hard to 'cite' the entire article. That John McCain was considered to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the 2004 ticket should tell you that he's a maverick. As far as being a leader, any of the numerous bills that he has put forth and pushed for already show that. When you tackle an issue like campaign finance reform, that would annoy both parties, and you actually get it to take a position of prominence under your leadership, then we are allowed to acknowledge that as leadership. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Confederate flag ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=539642&oldid=539635 What is the reason for this revert?] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:It was somewhat negative.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 18:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was surprised by your response until I looked at your edit history. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and help build an encyclopedia. I doubt anyone is interested in helping you be snarky. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== McCain & Evolution ==
JakobL says McCain is clearly against evolution. I think he understands it but feels not appropriate for Science class. What says you? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This link:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html
indicates that McCain is something of a theistic evolutionist. - [[User:Martib|Martib]] 14:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

John McCain's view of evolution is not "nuanced." He is a darwinist who rejects God's influence in our world. We criticize Obama for being muslim- but John McCain is hardly a conservative and denies the very nature of a Christian God. Let's call a spade a spade. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 19:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-06T00:27:16Z

LafinJack:

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' Well, yes. The experiment has been running for two decades, has it not? Of course most of the related data is going to be years old.--[[User:Jimbb2004|Jimbb2004]] 22:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Recall that I filled in one of those 'boxes' previously. It was removed with the description: "removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones". Here was that entry:

::::::::Under ''"'''Study Omissions'''" ''
::::::::''Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...''

::::::::''DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?''
::::::::''A Lenski defender says: From the first page of the paper in question (Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 105:7899-7906):''

::::::::''"To address the repeatability of evolutionary trajectories and outcomes, the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia coli was started in 1988 with the founding of 12 populations from the same clone (2). These populations were initially identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100 serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing 25 mg/liter glucose as the limiting resource (2, 22)."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)''

::::::::''WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?''
::::::::''A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.''
::::::::--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Legal Note: Lenski does not own all that data. His university owns the material. The way it works is, you file an MTA with the university for whatever it is you want, and you are generally expected to bear the standard costs of providing it to you. This is accepted practice in science. If you want the data, do this, and then if they turn you down you could perhaps sue Michigan State for some kind of discrimination. To go outside these procedures is to request special treatment.

: I didn't get much out of your comment, as you seem to ignore or misunderstand the value of public scrutiny of data. There is no requirement of suspecting misbehavior or fraud, obviously, in order to acknowledge that public access to publicly funded research has substantial benefits. All it takes is a recognition that no researcher is perfect and flawless.

: Your point about the university is interesting, but unsupported. It may be that the State of Michigan or Michigan State University has a requirement of disclosure. Information about that is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

==Freedom of Information act==
The challenge on the front page refers to Lenski’s [[Federally funded research]]. Conservapedia’s article about about Federally funded research [[Federally_funded_research#Circular_A-110 | says:]]

*“As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress included a provision introduced by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) that for the first time allows the public to obtain federally funded research data collected through grants and agreements with universities and other nonprofit organizations.”

If this work was federally funded, and if the legislation says what Conservapedia says it says, then a competent lawyer should have no problem in formatting the questions into a FOI request. Have I won the challenge?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 09:39, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, that doesn't work because unfortunately the Shelby Amendment has been construed not to enforce FOIA in the manner you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I see you have not yet answered on this. Probably because I did not make my question clear. (It may be be because my medicines.) My question is: Why would you make a challenge: - ""Who will be first to figure out a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's underlying federally funded data?"" - If you already know that the freedom of information act gives no authority or means to ask for this federally funded data. It seems a strange thing to do.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 14:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Obviously FOIA is not the only legal means for obtaining information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:34, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==

One bit of data that is said to be missing is how the markers for the strains were tested. I have starter question for those who would like to see the data (and those people only, not those who've already demonstrated an understanding of microbiology): How is the Ara marker tested and what data would one write in one's notebook if one performed such tests? Would one describe a number, a sequence of bases, colors, taste, smell, optical density or isoelectric point? What instruments would be used to measure the results? How was it performed in Lenksi's lab?

What about T5 sensitivity testing?

And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: When you demonstrate a recognition of the benefits of public scrutiny of data, Argon, there might be more interest in your postings. Put another way, do you really think Lenski is perfect and there can be no flaws in his analysis of data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Plans for the data? ==

Let's assume Lenski hands over everything outlined tomorrow. Mr. Schafly, what are your plans for analyzing the data? Who has the freezers and other equipment? If you don't have anyone with that equipment, how do you plan to analyze it? If you expect Lenski to hand over live bacteria, you need to show proof that you're able to contain it properly. As others have stated, you're the lawyer; if you get the documents and bacteria samples, but you don't have the storage capability, do '''you''' plan to be liable if these ''E. coli'' bacteria infect someone and cause them harm because of this "challenge"'s unpreparedness? - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 10:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: "LafinJack", please try to understand and acknowledge the benefits of public scrutiny, and also recognize the apparent existence of "data" as referenced in the article (not merely bacteria).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Mr Schlafly, I have previously tried to find out if you accept if the data are mainly in the organisms. Mr Lenski makes this point quite strongly in his letter. Do you accept that the main substantiating data are held within the organisms? And if you feel that this is not the case - why not?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::I too would be greatly interested to see the reply. Can't most of the experimental results and all of the key conclusions of the replay experiments be evaluated with the strains in hand?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:43, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been clear about the request for "data", a term that does not ordinarily include organisms. I recall that Lenski himself in the paper claims that he analyzed "data", and one of his co-authors did not. The table in the entry here on [[Lenski]] illustrates with great specificity what the undisclosed data are. No, it is not necessary to perform experiments and generate new data in order to review existing data for a published paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: First, Mr. Schlafly (if you like, my real name is Scott), I specifically said "the documents and bacteria samples", yet you act as if I am only talking about the bacteria. Second, even if you had those documents you'd be stuck with another problem: you are essentially charging Mr. Lenski with either misinterpreting or making up the results in his research. Assuming you had every single document (be it paper or electronic or whatever) on your desk this very moment, what would cause you to suddenly believe them with those missing parts now included? If I'm interpreting your challenge correctly, you wish to come to your own conclusions about the ''E. coli'' study. How are you going to do that with documents that you clearly distrust? You would need to examine the bacteria generations themselves, not just the documents you think are incorrect, to come to an independent opinion. Mr. Lenski seems more than willing to comply with your data request, but I haven't seen something similar from you showing that you're capable of storing and examining the bacteria samples safely. When do you hope to have the facilities online or loaned out? - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 20:27, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Addressing the table on [[Lenski]]- it would be worthwhile to state what the minimum requirements are for you to declare that the data is fully disclosed. For example, when you ask for data on daily turbidity observations, do you require a facsimile of every observation for all twelve cell lines for every daily transfer since 1988? A summary of only those observations which are 'unusual', according to some predetermined criteria? With or without facsimiles of those particular observations? With or without summaries and/or facsimiles of the tests performed to establish the cause of the unusual turbidity? When you ask for 'data' on contamination, do you wish for a summary of every contamination event for all twelve cell lines over since 1988, or just the Ara-3 line? Are facsimiles required? When you ask for 'higher resolution data underlying the figure', is it acceptable to present the same data in a table form rather than a figure, or are facsimiles of the recorded observations needed? Each 'Question' can be narrowed down significantly. The legitimacy of the challenge can be enhanced by fixing the goalposts at the outset.

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-05T14:48:40Z

LafinJack:

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' Well, yes. The experiment has been running for two decades, has it not? Of course most of the related data is going to be years old.--[[User:Jimbb2004|Jimbb2004]] 22:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Recall that I filled in one of those 'boxes' previously. It was removed with the description: "removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones". Here was that entry:

::::::::Under ''"'''Study Omissions'''" ''
::::::::''Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...''

::::::::''DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?''
::::::::''A Lenski defender says: From the first page of the paper in question (Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 105:7899-7906):''

::::::::''"To address the repeatability of evolutionary trajectories and outcomes, the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia coli was started in 1988 with the founding of 12 populations from the same clone (2). These populations were initially identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100 serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing 25 mg/liter glucose as the limiting resource (2, 22)."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)''

::::::::''WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?''
::::::::''A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.''
::::::::--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Legal Note: Lenski does not own all that data. His university owns the material. The way it works is, you file an MTA with the university for whatever it is you want, and you are generally expected to bear the standard costs of providing it to you. This is accepted practice in science. If you want the data, do this, and then if they turn you down you could perhaps sue Michigan State for some kind of discrimination. To go outside these procedures is to request special treatment.

: I didn't get much out of your comment, as you seem to ignore or misunderstand the value of public scrutiny of data. There is no requirement of suspecting misbehavior or fraud, obviously, in order to acknowledge that public access to publicly funded research has substantial benefits. All it takes is a recognition that no researcher is perfect and flawless.

: Your point about the university is interesting, but unsupported. It may be that the State of Michigan or Michigan State University has a requirement of disclosure. Information about that is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

==Freedom of Information act==
The challenge on the front page refers to Lenski’s [[Federally funded research]]. Conservapedia’s article about about Federally funded research [[Federally_funded_research#Circular_A-110 | says:]]

*“As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress included a provision introduced by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) that for the first time allows the public to obtain federally funded research data collected through grants and agreements with universities and other nonprofit organizations.”

If this work was federally funded, and if the legislation says what Conservapedia says it says, then a competent lawyer should have no problem in formatting the questions into a FOI request. Have I won the challenge?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 09:39, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, that doesn't work because unfortunately the Shelby Amendment has been construed not to enforce FOIA in the manner you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==

One bit of data that is said to be missing is how the markers for the strains were tested. I have starter question for those who would like to see the data (and those people only, not those who've already demonstrated an understanding of microbiology): How is the Ara marker tested and what data would one write in one's notebook if one performed such tests? Would one describe a number, a sequence of bases, colors, taste, smell, optical density or isoelectric point? What instruments would be used to measure the results? How was it performed in Lenksi's lab?

What about T5 sensitivity testing?

And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Plans for the data? ==

Let's assume Lenski hands over everything outlined tomorrow. Mr. Schafly, what are your plans for analyzing the data? Who has the freezers and other equipment? If you don't have anyone with that equipment, how do you plan to analyze it? If you expect Lenski to hand over live bacteria, you need to show proof that you're able to contain it properly. As others have stated, you're the lawyer; if you get the documents and bacteria samples, but you don't have the storage capability, do '''you''' plan to be liable if these ''E. coli'' bacteria infect someone and cause them harm because of this "challenge"'s unpreparedness? - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 10:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-05T14:47:54Z

LafinJack: /* Plans for the data? */ new section

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' Well, yes. The experiment has been running for two decades, has it not? Of course most of the related data is going to be years old.--[[User:Jimbb2004|Jimbb2004]] 22:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Recall that I filled in one of those 'boxes' previously. It was removed with the description: "removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones". Here was that entry:

::::::::Under ''"'''Study Omissions'''" ''
::::::::''Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...''

::::::::''DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?''
::::::::''A Lenski defender says: From the first page of the paper in question (Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 105:7899-7906):''

::::::::''"To address the repeatability of evolutionary trajectories and outcomes, the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia coli was started in 1988 with the founding of 12 populations from the same clone (2). These populations were initially identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100 serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing 25 mg/liter glucose as the limiting resource (2, 22)."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)''

::::::::''WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?''
::::::::''A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.''
::::::::--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Legal Note: Lenski does not own all that data. His university owns the material. The way it works is, you file an MTA with the university for whatever it is you want, and you are generally expected to bear the standard costs of providing it to you. This is accepted practice in science. If you want the data, do this, and then if they turn you down you could perhaps sue Michigan State for some kind of discrimination. To go outside these procedures is to request special treatment.

: I didn't get much out of your comment, as you seem to ignore or misunderstand the value of public scrutiny of data. There is no requirement of suspecting misbehavior or fraud, obviously, in order to acknowledge that public access to publicly funded research has substantial benefits. All it takes is a recognition that no researcher is perfect and flawless.

: Your point about the university is interesting, but unsupported. It may be that the State of Michigan or Michigan State University has a requirement of disclosure. Information about that is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

==Freedom of Information act==
The challenge on the front page refers to Lenski’s [[Federally funded research]]. Conservapedia’s article about about Federally funded research [[Federally_funded_research#Circular_A-110 | says:]]

*“As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress included a provision introduced by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) that for the first time allows the public to obtain federally funded research data collected through grants and agreements with universities and other nonprofit organizations.”

If this work was federally funded, and if the legislation says what Conservapedia says it says, then a competent lawyer should have no problem in formatting the questions into a FOI request. Have I won the challenge?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 09:39, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, that doesn't work because unfortunately the Shelby Amendment has been construed not to enforce FOIA in the manner you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==

One bit of data that is said to be missing is how the markers for the strains were tested. I have starter question for those who would like to see the data (and those people only, not those who've already demonstrated an understanding of microbiology): How is the Ara marker tested and what data would one write in one's notebook if one performed such tests? Would one describe a number, a sequence of bases, colors, taste, smell, optical density or isoelectric point? What instruments would be used to measure the results? How was it performed in Lenksi's lab?

What about T5 sensitivity testing?

And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Plans for the data? ==

Let's assume Lenski hands over everything outlined tomorrow. Mr. Schafly, what are your plans for analyzing the data? Who has the freezers and other equipment? If you don't have anyone with that equipment, how do you plan to analyze it? If you expect Lenski to hand over live bacteria, you need to show proof that you're able to contain it properly. As others have stated, you're the lawyer; if you get the documents and bacteria samples, but you don't have the storage capability, do '''you''' plan to be liable if these ''E. coli'' bacteria infect someone and cause them harm because of this "challenge"'s unpreparedness?